The Fitness Superstore

Per Mr [redacted] s response on 10/23, he states that he correctly referred to the part in question as the “front transport wheel bracket” However in my response of 10/I made very clear to him that was not the part in question so he is incorrect In Mr [redacted] s response to us on 10/he makes several statements that indicate that he may have been confused as to what part of the rower we were talking about Those statements are as follows “The issue described in the customer's response must be something different If we were wrong in our initial understanding, we sincerely apologize.” and “If the photos clarify that we made a mistake and an issue different than the front transport wheel bracket was installed incorrectly, we will make an appropriate refund to the customer.” Thus the reason that I stated in my response on 10/that I misspoke by calling the front legs a “bracket” In my initial complaint I called the front legs a front bracketOn 10/Mr [redacted] s response to my initial complaint refers to the “Front transport wheel bracket” as the “transport bracket” It is not until Mr [redacted] s response from 10/that the legs in question are even referred to as a “front transport wheel bracket” On 10/I responded to Mr [redacted] and offered supporting pictures as well as the following statement “Just so that we are clear it was the front legs that were reversed, I recalled that the legs in question were actually one whole piece thus the reason I referred to them as the bracket, which is not technically the proper term, so there may have been some confusion on how this was communicated to you.” At this juncture in the process we should now both be on the same page The front legs are the part that was reversed As I stated in my 10/response I don’t know if the wheels are on correctly or not Giving my best educated guess and by looking at the pictures Mr [redacted] should be able to ascertain and we should both be able to agree that the wheels appear to be on correctly I have resubmitted the picture with the green circling the front legs that are in question The red circled part is NOT the part in question Mr [redacted] requests pictures of the orientation of the front legs at the time we picked up our rower? Quite frankly who would have thought to take pictures of the rower at the time it was picked up? After hauling it home and the frustration of spending an hour trying to disnose why my rower wasn’t working the last thing we were thinking about was taking pictures When it did dawn on me that pictures might be helpful it was after almost hours when my Husband was almost done reassembling the rower to its correct working condition The longer leg was in the front and the shorter leg was in the back BEFORE we corrected it As I have stated repeatedly there was no reason for these legs to have been removed I am fine with the front transport wheel bracket being reversed, but the front legs were not on the machine incorrectly when we brought the rower in I am baffled that Mr [redacted] seems to think we would go through ALL of this merely over as he states, “simply wanting some money back”Its absurd to me that Mr [redacted] appears to be more concerned about thinking he's right then correcting an issue with a customer and seeing a training opportunity for his technicians He was wrong in his initial understanding, we clarified the terminology for the front legs An issue different than the front transport wheel bracket was installed incorrectly, the front legs were reversed Now we will wait for an appropriate refund

Dear Ms [redacted] : Thank you for sending the photos to provide clarification Based on your earlier statements we correctly addressed the part you referred to as the front transport wheel bracket Your most recent response indicates that you are in fact referring to a different part called the front legs or front leg bracket The photos are helpful, but a little additional clarification will be of great assistance You sent three photos Which photo (please refer to by the photo number in your transmittal) reflects the orientation of the front legs at the time you picked your rower up after we repaired the fan blade? We do have excellent surveillance cameras and good recording capability Unfortunately, your complaint was filed nearly three months after you picked up the rower following the repair, and another month has passed during its discussion Our recording capability does not extend for that length of time Thank you for the additional information Sincerely, [redacted]

September 28, Revdex.com Southwest RE: Complaint # [redacted] : Customer correctly states that service was performed to their satisfaction Our technicians disassembled and repaired a bent bracket that was impacting the fan blade Unit is an older Concept Model C, and the transport wheels remain in contact with the ground during use This was a design flaw that leads to the rower creeping forward during use, and all newer rowers corrected this earlier defect Our technicians followed the manufacturer’s recommendations and flipped the transport bracket to correct this design flaw This factory-recommended change improves the performance, and we always make it following the guidelines for Concept Model C rowers The customer was not charged for this service, as it took less than one minute The customer was satisfied with the service we performed on their rower but complained that we made this change They were told that we would gladly flip the bracket back to its original position free of charge which requires less than a minute The customer refused our offer to cure and demanded monetary refund This is a simple case of our technician following the manufacturer’s service recommendation Unfortunately, it changed the unit in the customer’s eyes, and they wanted it fixed No problem, we offered to return it to its original position at no cost, but the customer declined about an offer to cure They simply wanted some money back We repaired their rower to their satisfaction, and we declined to return any money The validity of the complaint is questionable given that the change is factory recommended By declining our offer to cure at no cost, the customer made this claim invalid Please advise if you require any additional information Sincerely, [redacted] President

It is sounds to me that the problem Mrs*** is referring to is not the same issue we understand it to be
The front bracket issue I discussed and believed to be at issue is extremely obvious and straight-forward and would not preclude proper working condition of the unit
Flipping this bracket is recommended by the manufacturer to correct a design flaw in the oldest version of the Model C rower such as the ***'s rower
This design
flaw was corrected on later versions of the Model C rower
The issue described in the customer's response must be something different
If we were wrong in our initial understanding, we sincerely apologize
Our technician confirmed that he tested the rower once the repairs were made to the fan blade
Our procedures require customers to test their units before loading the machines into their vehicles
This is especially important when clients take products outside of our immediate service area as in this case (*** ***)
Based on procedures we have high confidence that the unit worked properly when it left our service center
It would be very helpful if a couple of photos of the unit could be emailed so that we can better understand their concern. Simply point to the part(s) that they feel was assembled incorrectly
As it stands at this moment, our technician and service manager simply do not understand what part the customer feels was installed incorrectly
I certainly understand that they do not feel it is worth the effort to drive it back to Albuquerque, but we are in the unenviable position of being unable to confirm the customer's claim
Please email the photos to ***
If the photos clarify that we made a mistake and an issue different than the front transport wheel bracket was installed incorrectly, we will make an appropriate refund to the customer
We have offered to correct any issue any customer has with any service we have performed or any product purchased from The Fitness Superstore
We have faithfully followed this philosophy for over years and will continue to in the future
Sincerely,
*** ***

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Regards,
*** ***

Good morning Mr***,
In regards to your response via the Revdex.com website it was not the wheel bracket that was in question, so this issue must not have been as "extremely obvious and straight forward"as you state or I suppose clarification would not be required. Yes, you are correct, the bar that holds the wheels would not have prevented the rower from working correctly. Maybe your technicians were unclear as to the part that was recommended to be flipped. It was the V bracket that holds the fan that was reversed. At this point I am not even sure if the wheels are on the correct way as its always been awkward to move.
I take no issue with your technician saying that he tested the rower after adjusting the fan blades, he may have, but this could have only been done BEFORE the bracket in question was reversed as the rower could not have been assembled after that. Your facility is fully equipped with surveillance cameras so you can verify that the rower wasn't tested upon pickup. It was in two parts and loaded into the truck, no one asked me to test it, no one offered to assemble it so I could test it and quite honestly considering how menial the service was that we requested I didn't think twice about testing it.
I am attaching pictures of the bracket, which according to the Concept website is referred to as the 'front legs'. Just so that we are clear it was the front legs that were reversed, I recalled that the legs in question were actually one whole piece thus the reason I referred to them as the bracket, which is not technically the proper term, so there may have been some confusion on how this was communicated to you. Had the technician tested the rower AFTER reversing what you refer to as the front transport wheel bracket, the rowers inability to operate would have been extremely obvious. The front bracket where the wheels were attached was not parallel to the ground, it was tilted up at an angle preventing the front portion of the rower from connecting with the monorail correctly. By the bracket not sitting correctly on the ground the rower would have been extremely unstable and not safe to use. Had your technician attempted to assemble the rower he would have seen that the monorail was tilted forward at an extreme angle and was unable to attach to the front fan portion of the rower correctly.
Mr***, this is not a matter of money, we never requested a full refund, but understandably some compensation for the mistake, nothing more, nothing less
We do appreciate you taking the time to look this over again. I sincerely hope my further explanation and photos provide the necessary clarification to resolving this issue.
*** ***

Dear Ms. [redacted]:
Thank you for sending the photos to provide clarification.  Based on your earlier statements we correctly addressed the part you referred to as the front transport wheel bracket.  Your most recent response indicates that you are in fact referring to a different part called the front legs or front leg bracket.
The photos are helpful, but a little additional clarification will be of great assistance.  You sent three photos.  Which photo (please refer to by the photo number in your transmittal) reflects the orientation of the front legs at the time you picked your rower up after we repaired the fan blade? 
We do have excellent surveillance cameras and good recording capability.  Unfortunately, your complaint was filed nearly three months after you picked up the rower following the repair, and another month has passed during its discussion.  Our recording capability does not extend for that length of time.
Thank you for the additional information.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12036490, and find that this resolution...

is satisfactory to me.  This is in regard to the complaint I filed against the James Imaging Company.They called me and sent me a check for the refund of the money I paid for the fax board I do not have on my machine.I received the check.They said to not pay the $13 even if it appears on the bill.My situation is resolved.

Per Mr. [redacted]s response on 10/23, he states that he correctly referred to the part in question as the “front transport wheel bracket”.  However in my response of 10/22 I made very clear to him that was not the part in question so he is incorrect.  In Mr. [redacted]s response to us on 10/15 he makes several statements that indicate that he may have been confused as to what part of the rower we were talking about.  Those statements are as follows “The issue described in the customer's response must be something different.
If we were wrong in our initial understanding, we sincerely apologize.”
and
“If the photos clarify that we made a mistake and an issue different than the front transport wheel bracket was installed incorrectly, we will make an appropriate refund to the customer.”
Thus the reason that I stated in my response on 10/22 that I misspoke by calling the front legs a “bracket”.
 
In my initial complaint I called the front legs a front bracket. On 10/3 Mr. [redacted]s response to my initial complaint refers to the “Front transport wheel bracket” as the “transport bracket”.  It is not until Mr. [redacted]s response from 10/15 that the legs in question are even referred to as a “front transport wheel bracket”.  On 10/22 I responded to Mr. [redacted] and offered 3 supporting pictures as well as the following statement “Just so that we are clear it was the front legs that were reversed, I recalled that the legs in question were actually one whole piece thus the reason I referred to them as the bracket, which is not technically the proper term, so there may have been some confusion on how this was communicated to you.” 
 
At this juncture in the process we should now both be on the same page.  The front legs are the part that was reversed.  As I stated in my 10/22 response I don’t know if the wheels are on correctly or not.  Giving my best educated guess and by looking at the pictures Mr. [redacted] should be able to ascertain and we should both be able to agree that the wheels appear to be on correctly.  I have resubmitted the picture with the green circling the front legs that are in question.  The red circled part is NOT the part in question.  Mr. [redacted] requests pictures of the orientation of the front legs at the time we picked up our rower?  Quite frankly who would have thought to take pictures of the rower at the time it was picked up?  After hauling it home and the frustration of spending an hour trying to disnose why my rower wasn’t working the last thing we were thinking about was taking pictures.  When it did dawn on me that pictures might be helpful it was after almost 2 hours when my Husband was almost done reassembling the rower to its correct working condition.  The longer leg was in the front and the shorter leg was in the back BEFORE we corrected it.  As I have stated repeatedly there was no reason for these legs to have been removed.  I am fine with the front transport wheel bracket being reversed, but the front legs were not on the machine incorrectly when we brought the rower in.  I am baffled that Mr. [redacted] seems to think we would go through ALL of this merely over as he states, “simply wanting some money back”. Its absurd to me that Mr. [redacted] appears to be more concerned about thinking he's right then correcting an issue with a customer and seeing a training opportunity for his technicians.  He was wrong in his initial understanding, we clarified the terminology for the front legs.  An issue different than the front transport wheel bracket was installed incorrectly, the front legs were reversed.  Now we will wait for an appropriate refund.

The rower was brought in for repair of a bent internal fan making contact with the fan housing.  We opened the fan housing unit from the side, straightened & balanced the fan, reassembled & tested it.  This repair was completed to the customer's satisfaction because no mention has been made of any problem with the fan blade.  During testing the unit it walked forward because the front transport wheels were in contact with the floor instead of the resting above the ground as shown in the final photo.
The service manager and technician who performed the repair confirm and are certain that they NEVER removed the front leg as the repair did not require removal of that part.  The front transport wheel bracket was reversed to prevent the rower from resting on the transport wheels.  It is clear that the unit was brought in with the front leg in the reversed position, and they both confirmed observing this condition.  TO BE CLEAR - the front leg was installed in the reversed position before it was brought in for service - we never removed it.  The customer correctly points out, removing the front leg takes time.
The customer would likely not have recognized the angle of the front
transport wheel bracket when they had it at home prior to bringing it
in, because the wheels were in contact with the floor instead of the
bracket.  Allowing the wheels to contact the floor can lead to
unintentional movement of the unit during use.  The correct, but more time consuming and expensive fix is to reverse the front leg - we did not do this.  The simple, easy fix is
to reverse the front transport wheel bracket which is what we did.  When we reversed the front transport wheel bracket to get the unit off of its transport wheels it made the contact angle of the transport wheel bracket with the ground more apparent.  The simple fix we made did not add to the customer's cost of repair and made the unit safer and more stable than when it came in resting on its transport wheels.
This customer waited nearly three months to notify us of what they felt was a problem, and her initial response included numerous erroneous part names which caused significant confusion.
We repeatedly offered to correct any problem, and asked the customer to return the rower to us so that we could address their concern.  That is the correct and appropriate business position, and it remains our ongoing commitment to customers.  Businesses cannot operate in conditions where customers refuse to cooperate in attempting to address their concerns and simply demand money back.
We made a change to the rower which improved its operation and safety but also shed light on a much earlier assembly defect.  In this case, the customer was simply made aware of an assembly mistake
that occurred long before the rower was ever brought into our shop for
repairs. I acknowledge that we should have discussed this when the customer picked up the rower, but as happens when a business operates seven days a week, the service manager and technician who worked on the rower were off at the time the unit was retrieved.
While I absolutely do not believe a refund of any kind is justified, given the confusion I will mail a check to the customer for $25.00 after the customer provides written acceptance of this as closure to their complaint.   If that is not acceptable, I consider this matter closed and will not respond further.
[redacted], President

September 28, 2014
Revdex.com Southwest
RE: Complaint #[redacted]
[redacted]:
Customer correctly states that service was performed to their satisfaction.  Our technicians disassembled and repaired a bent bracket that was impacting the fan blade.  Unit is an older Concept 2 Model...

C, and the transport wheels remain in contact with the ground during use.  This was a design flaw that leads to the rower creeping forward during use, and all newer rowers corrected this earlier defect.  Our technicians followed the manufacturer’s recommendations and flipped the transport bracket to correct this design flaw.  This factory-recommended change improves the performance, and we always make it following the guidelines for Concept 2 Model C rowers.  The customer was not charged for this service, as it took less than one minute.
The customer was satisfied with the service we performed on their rower but complained that we made this change.  They were told that we would gladly flip the bracket back to its original position free of charge which requires less than a minute.  The customer refused our offer to cure and demanded monetary refund.
This is a simple case of our technician following the manufacturer’s service recommendation.  Unfortunately, it changed the unit in the customer’s eyes, and they wanted it fixed.  No problem, we offered to return it to its original position at no cost, but the customer declined about an offer to cure.  They simply wanted some money back.  We repaired their rower to their satisfaction, and we declined to return any money.
The validity of the complaint is questionable given that the change is factory recommended.  By declining our offer to cure at no cost, the customer made this claim invalid.  Please advise if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
President

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Mr[redacted]'s response starts by
incorrectly stating that I stated that the service was performed to my
satisfaction. Had that been the case I
suppose we wouldn't be dealing with the Revdex.com to resolve this issue. So that we are all clear, no part of my
experience from arriving home with the item until now has been
satisfactory.
Mr[redacted]'s comments are correct
regarding a design flaw, however after having contacted Concept myself and
speaking with Nathan he stated that this design flaw does not apply to all
Model C units. My rower never crept
forward nor did I mention that it did when I dropped the rower off at The
Fitness Superstore to be serviced. Not
once during the intake of my unit did I state that the Rower couldn't be
assembled or that I was having problems assembling the Rower. Thus the manufacturer's recommendation would NOT
have applied to my unit. This would have
been blatantly obvious to any competently trained technician as he should have discovered
that the rower could not be re-assembled and then corrected the problem. Mr[redacted] continues by stating that by
flipping the bracket the performance would be improved. Not sure how he believes this to be a true
and correct statement as the Rower was rendered inoperable and required
reassembly by my Husband and I to work at all.
This entire matter could have been avoided had The Fitness Superstore practiced
some quality control and simply double checked their work before releasing the
rower back to the customer. I am a
little baffled that they didn't make sure the unit assembled correctly and
worked properly after performing any type of work to the unit, it honestly
makes me question the quality of the other work that was completed
In his response Mr[redacted] again reiterates
that I was satisfied with the service performed. I am unsure why he continues to make this
statement as it was shortly after I arrived home to use the rower that I
discovered it was assembled incorrectly.
At this point I contacted Michael Harlow the Service Manager via email and
then also made contact with Dustin and Oliver via phone regarding the same
issue. The latter two stated someone
would call me back and I was never contacted again, via phone or email. Mr[redacted] then states that they would
have gladly flipped the bracket back to its original position thus indicating
to me that he is acknowledging that it was assembled by his technicians
incorrectly. All of his staff that I
interacted with were aware that we live in [redacted] and had to borrow a
vehicle to bring and pick up the rower.
It was completely unreasonable for The Fitness Superstore to suggest that
we haul the rower back so they could correct their mistake.
Mr[redacted] states that this was
simply a case of his technicians following the manufacturer's recommendation
where in actuality this is simply a case of his technicians not checking their
work and of poor customer service. He
continues by stating that their work changed the unit in my eyes, more like in anyone's
eyes as I am unsure why anyone would pay for service that renders a unit
inoperable. I did not pay The Fitness
Superstore to have to diagnose, disassemble and have to reassemble my machine
myself. Concept rowers are not cheap
units by any means, had I been feeling thrifty I suppose we could have
consulted the numerous online videos available to do the service
ourselves. Sadly, upon returning home
that is what we ended up having to do to diagnose the problem. It is rather unfortunate that instead of
being seen as an opportunity to do better, offer better customer service, see
to it that his technicians are better trained and maintain the highest integrity Mr[redacted] has chosen to reply by
implying that this is merely a matter of wanting money back. This is about customer service and The
Fitness Superstores now inability to remedy a problem. We never asked for a FULL refund, merely a
refund of a few dollars for the inconvenience of our experience after returning
home with an inoperable rower; I am not sure why that seems unreasonable to Mr
[redacted].
Lastly, Mr[redacted] again states
that the work was completed to our satisfaction and this is NOT a true statement
ever made by me.
Regards,
[redacted]
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]