Sign in

TASA Network & Service Solutions

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about TASA Network & Service Solutions? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews TASA Network & Service Solutions

TASA Network & Service Solutions Reviews (4)

Mr. [redacted] filed a grievance with the [redacted] to get $80.00 from TASA, which he paid to have TASA install his windows 7 operating system because he tried to do it and failed. ASA installed the operating system for the agreed upon $80.00 and now his laptop works, Mr. [redacted] has a failed chip on his motherboard due to wear and tear. Mr. [redacted] as told we could replace the motherboard and fix this problem so that his external monitor port for a second monitor would function, unfortunately Mr. [redacted] doesn't want o spend any money on his own laptop. This is in no way TASA's problem TASA installed the operating system and it works perfectly, TASA is not responsible for Mr. [redacted] hardware not working correctly. TASA provided a solution for this but again Mr. [redacted] chose not to replace his motherboard. Mr. [redacted] wants TASA to give him $80.00 back for an operating system install which orks and was done correctly with no problems. It would be like asking a mechanic to refund money for an engine rebuilt because the customer has a flat tire on there car, but the mechanic refuses to pay for the customers lat tire to be fixed so the customer comes to the [redacted] to try to get his money back. Don't be ridiculous here is no fault by TASA in any way and the [redacted] had better take care of this because if I find that it ends up being listed somewhere I will take whatever legal action is necessary against them for defamation. TASA has been in business for 20 years and e have no complaints anywhere because we do value customers, but we do not or will we ever give in to dishonest people or companies trying to force a decision in their favor with a threat of making it public record. The only Question the [redacted] should be asking and the complaint is did TASA install a working version of windows 7 on Mr. [redacted] machine for $80.00. Answer is yes they did for $80.00 services rendered, case closed.

[redacted]:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
This letter is in response to TASA’s letter posted in

5/8/2014. TASA claims this grievance filed to the Revdex.com for $80.00, but as I

have already stated:
This letter is in response to TASA’s letter posted in

5/8/2014. TASA claims this grievance filed to the [redacted] to have $80.00, but as I

have already stated:
TASA provided an incomplete diagnosis to an

insurance claim voiding insurance claim because of TASA mismanagement of the

case.
TASA time of diagnosis was 2 month. TASA website

claims 7 day turnaround.
TASA first claims in previous filings in this

case that computer is defective. In the most recent letter, TASA claims

computer is suffering from normal wear and tear. TASA’s claims lack

consistency.
 TASA

claims this customer does not wish to spend money on the repair, the customer

already spent money. This repair is based in an insurance claim, a deductible was

paid, as well as monthly insurance premiums and payments. The customer only

wishes that the services rendered were appropriate.
The customer contests that the services rendered

where not appropriate. The services provided added no value. There is no

purpose in software installation when the hardware is malfunctioning.
The customer does not demand a refund, the

customer does not even demand complete repair. The customer is offering TASA an

opportunity to redeem its reputation it claims to have for over 20 years. The

customer only objects to TASA’s management of this case. TASA mismanagement of

the case has put all the burden of cost on the customer. The customer only

asked that TASA accept responsibility for its mismanagement, and offered an

acceptable option.
The [redacted] is an organization that promotes

discourse between customers and businesses. While TASA can file any claim

against the customer and the [redacted] for defamation freely, the customer has

provided statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were

true. The burden of proof would have to be on TASA to show that the customer’s

statements are not made in good faith. The customer has made only claims that

are substantiated by evidence.
TASA has not provided any evidence to show that

the statement made by customer are false.
TASA misrepresents customer and

attempts to speak for the customers intentions. Once again, TASA cannot speak

for the customer and the customer requests that TASA cease and desist from this

course of action.
The customer contends that TASA no longer acts in good

faith. TASA is now threatening the [redacted] and the customer with legal action over

statement made in good faith. The customer only wishes for a positive dialogue

but rejects the notion that threats are an acceptable form of communication. I

request that the [redacted] take action to defend its respected position in this

community as a mediator between customers and businesses and censure TASA for

making threats in civil discourse.

Regards,

To Whom It May Concern, 

Mr. [redacted] was part of a TASA Job involving smoke damage to two items, a microwave and the Lenovo ideapad Y560 Laptop. When said items were picked up the customer mentioned the Lenovo not working properly; specifically that they could not utilize the more...

powerful secondary Video Clip on the motherboard of the Lenovo laptop. 

Lenovo functioned during diagnostics however there were problems with the Operation System (O/S) which had recently been reinstalled by the Customer in an attempt to correct the Video problem. Customer was presented with the option to reinstall the Operating System to allow the laptop to actually be utilized as though the hardware functioned the computer was not able to carry out its normal tasks due to a corrupt O/S. 

Customer agreed to reinstallation and after everything was properly formatted and installed the laptop was functional for its normal purposes, i.e. e-mail, internet, work, games, etc. However the more powerful secondary Video Chip was still faulty as it was a normal wear and tear problem with this specific laptop. This is a common problem  with Lenovo's ideapad Y560 family where the secondary video chip will cease to function due to overheating even though the rest of the laptop works perfectly. This does not prevent the laptop from working as one would expect of a laptop. The only parts of the laptop that do not function perfectly are; external video port- which is tied to the secondary Video Chip, enhanced video-utilized in in 3d modeling and playing games which is enabled by the secondary Video Chip. 

Mr. [redacted] was charged for TASA to correct his Operating System and this was carried out successfully making the Lenovo laptop usable. 

The only problems were due to pre-existing hardware failure, these problems being; faulty secondary Video Chip DVD drive that doesn't read. Both problems came up in diagnostics and neither is affected by the O/S reinstallation. 

Mr. [redacted] complaint is that he would like to be refunded for the operating system install done by TASA, but this installation works perfectly and has no relationship to the issue with Mr. [redacted] hardware. This again as stated previously is a common problem with this model laptop Mr. [redacted] was presented with am option to fix this problem and declined repair as it would cost him money to do so. 

If you should have any further questions please feel free to contact us directly. Thank you

With Care, 

[redacted]

Vice President

Tasa Network Solutions and Services

[redacted]:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Unfortunately, TASA has misrepresented the situation involving the computer.

First, TASA is not capable of knowing what happened to the computer prior to them receiving the computer. The claims associated with the software installation prior to them receiving them are unjustified. TASA received the computer a few days after fire. They were told that diagnostics had been run and that their where no conflicts with software. They informed 3rd Party insurance company that the ONLY issues were software (affidavits can be provided). If the issue was software as claimed by TASA, the video card would have worked, the video card does not work, and thus the issue was not resolved.

TASA claims that somehow they know the personal lives of clients by saying that Operating System had been reinstalled to solve video card issues. The Operating System had been reinstalled and hard drive reformatted to remove proprietary company information. The computer had been transferred to be used as a personal device. Once again, the conflicts in software came from conflicts with operating system not properly applying primary video card because video card was not functional.

TASA claims that the video card that is not working is secondary. A review of the consumer web sites in even a common search shows that that a Lenovo Y560 of this model's primary video card is a ATI Radeon HD 5730 (reference [redacted]://[redacted].[redacted].[redacted]-**-*-[redacted]/**/[re... This video card is critical for functionality. The alternative video card referenced by TASA is troubleshooting card that is not primary and not even promoted as primary in consumer data.

TASA claims that it is only after the installation of operating system did they identify the video card had failed. This is only partially true. They delivered the computer after reinstalling the operating system. After a quick observation, it was clear the primary video card was not functional. The computer was returned. TASA reevaluated the computer on my insistence and they found that the video card was not functional. The need of reinstalling the operating system was not necessary and was not required to identify the malfunctioning video card. This is clear because they did not identify the problem through their effort; it was only under my insistence that they identified the issue.

TASA held the computer in their care for 2 months and never identified the malfunctioning computer. After the reinstallation of the operating system, they were still not able to identify the problem until I insisted that there was a problem.

I have no idea why TASA chooses to misrepresent the situation. I have 3rd party validation, evidence from even common email searches, and even their own acknowledgement that the computer was not repaired yet they are still charging me for a service that does not bring to computer to full functionality as was their guarantee as what their promise to me and every member of my family.

TASA claims this is a common problem with this model; they have no valid source direct from the manufacturer to validate this claim. These claims come from unsubstantiated random claims made by unknown individuals on web forums. If this had been a production issue, the 4 years this computer has been held does not reveal any issues in regards to video card.

Even without the above issues, TASA failed to fully diagnose the computer's issues to the Insurance Company. TASA took 2 months to reinstall the software (not including the return for malfunctioning video card). TASA's actions have destroyed any evidence of overheating caused by fire. TASA's misdiagnosis has voided any insurance claim because there is no longer any possible way to get proper appraisal of damages (insurance company takes not responsibility for vendor mismanagement).

This claim is not of high monetary value, this claim could have easily been resolved with accurate information from TASA. The computer was delivered to my 72 year old mother who is incapable of computer diagnostics or there would never have been a payment for an unnecessary service. There is no purpose in reinstalling an operating system in a computer that is only partially functional, so the reinstallation of software was completely unnecessary.

At still hope this issue can be resolved in an appropriate a respectful manner. I hope that TASA will make no further hear-say claims of actions they are not capable of knowing. If affidavits from third parties are required, I will provide them. But this issue with TASA is time consuming, for such a small monetary claim; this is taking a large proportion of my time. I would also ask that TASA stop making unsubstantiated claims that required time consuming responses, research, and me having to take other people’s time.

Regards,[redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of TASA Network & Service Solutions

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

TASA Network & Service Solutions Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 331 E Chilton Dr, Chandler, Arizona, United States, 85225

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with TASA Network & Service Solutions.



Add contact information for TASA Network & Service Solutions

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated