Superior Overhead Door Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/05/29) */
Superior Overhead Door did not disable garage door #On April 28, we came out to service door #We adjusted the light socket so the light would workThe garage door opener was extremely old and quit working while on siteThis
opener did not meet regulations and did not have photo eyesWe quoted prices for three different model openers they selected the belt drive opener with remotes and no keypadTechnician offered to program remote from the old opener that was on door #to garage door #so that they would have a remoteCustomer stated they didn't even know if the remote worked or how old the battery wasThis remote was the customers we did not supply this remoteThe remote was operating the door at time technician leftCustomer called our office at 7:pm the same day stating the remote would no longer workThere is no warranty on old remote or opener that we did not supply or installThere is a one year warranty on the opener installed on door #Customer hung up on *** at the office twice when we called on April 29, letting her know the listed information aboveWe recommended that the old opener that does not meet the safety code per United States Consumer Product Safety Commission needs to be replaced it cannot be repairedThis existing garage door opener on door #was over years oldThe average lifetime of a garage door opener per manufactures is seven yearsAfter hanging up on *** Mr*** called again wanting to speak to someone higher upThat same day *** called him back and explained the exact same thingHe did not find this to be acceptable and wanted to speak with ***Mr*** threatened to stop credit card payment for new garage door opener that we installed, which *** explained would be theft of service and would have to contact the police if he chose that routeCustomer again expressed he wanted to speak with *** before he went any further*** and *** returned to Mr***'s home on May 2, after hours and free of charge to inspect the jobIt was determined that there was no way our technician "could have disabled garage door opener #3"The operator board was malfunctioning and functioning sporadicallyThis is activity that occurs when the board is going bad in the garage door openerIt was again recommended to Mr*** he should replace the garage door openerWe quoted him at that time a less expensive chain drive openerThe customer asked if we had a used opener or board for his current garage door opener we could install for himIt is our company policy to abide by the final rules for automatic garage door openersMr*** signed off on both invoices indicating he understoodWe did not have a reconditioned opener to sell Mr*** at this timeWhen *** informed him of this on May 15, he asked to speak to *** again or he would go to the Revdex.com*** informed Mr*** that *** would be out of the office for two weeks and he would be unable to contact himWe did confirm with *** that the only thing we could do was install a new garage door openerWe could not repair his current opener that does not have photo eyesWe did receive a certified letter from Mr*** did not return to work until May 27, There is nothing further we can do to help Mr*** unless he chooses to replace the openerThe Consumer Product Safety Commission states: "The legislation also requires the residential garage door openers manufactured on or after January 1, comply with additional entrapment protection requirements developed by the UL." External entrapment protection device, such as an "electrical eye" which "sees" an object obstructing the door." Please see attached copy signed invoices by Mr*** from both trips to his home
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/05/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
1- I did not hang up on anyoneI object to the allegationI did tell them my strong disappointment for the service and my concern about the frightening threat of calling the police on meI do not hang up on peopleI have been very frustrated because I can no longer operate garage door # Had the company alerted me about the light bulb new design issue, I could have solved the problem myself by using the light bulb that fit the socket and continue to enjoy the good functioning of the garage doors as they functioned prior to SUPERIOR OVERHEAD Door's (SOD) arrival
2- The answer from (SOD) is not relevant to the complaint
3- The complaint is that SOD disabled the functioning of garage door # The motor on door # had been functioning perfectly well until SOD people worked on the garage door # in the manner I discussed in the complaint
4- To make it clearer: I never asked SOD people to do anything with garage door # or door # for that matter, UNTIL SOD was done installing the new $ motor to door # , at which time the SOD technician told me door # was not working anymore
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/06/04) */
In response to the customers objectionsI *** *** was personally hung up by both Mr*** and Mrs*** on more then one occasionIn regards to the statement about calling the police if the credit card payment is stopped they will be contacted due to theft of service and productThere are three witnesses in the office to attest to thisHowever we can go back and forth with he said, she said all day and it seems that we will not agreeWe have also had three technicians out at his homeAs previously stated there is no way we were able to disable garage door #The light bulb situation had been solved and when the technician was leaving the board on door #went out, we could not cause this to happenThe garage door opener on door #is not up to code and again there is no way for us to disable the board from working conditionWhile on site the second time it was intermittingly working and recommended to be replacedAt this point I believe Mr*** should find a new door company
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2014/06/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Instead of fixing the damage they caused to our garage door #3, Superior Door Overhead (SDO) continues with A- Unfounded accusations; B-Bizarre interpretation of the law and Police function; C- Contradictions; D- Possible misrepresentations; E-Unclear recommendation
A- Unfounded accusations: SDO now accuses Mrs*** too about hanging up on SDO peopleNeither of us ever hung up on SDO people
B- Bizarre interpretation of the law and Police function: There is no theft, the credit card payment would be activated immediately as soon SDO corrects the damage they caused to our door #This is not a police matterThis a matter of professional ethics
C- Contradictions; On the April 28, consultation and service, SDO said it would be against the law to do anything on door # because it was "not to code." Yet on May 2, "technician ***" and "*** ***, partially owner of SDO" came to work on dysfunctional door #3, (see SDO's own statement: "While on site the second time it was intermittingly working and recommended to be replaced."
D- Possible misrepresentations: " ...we could not cause this to happen." "there is no way for us to disable the board from working condition." I understand that technicians are able to disable the boards easily
E- Unclear recommendation: Is SDO willing to pay for the repair work on door # done by another door company? If so, SDO should formally say it