Third Eye Vision Reviews (%countItem)
Third Eye Vision Rating
Address: 1969 S Alafaya Trl # 101, Orlando, Florida, United States, 32828-8732
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Fax: |
+1 (407) 207-3320 |
Web: |
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for Third Eye Vision
Add new contacts
Amazing service and trusted company to deal with. Had great experience with them since over 15 years of doing business with them. I would recommend them to all..!
We got security camera system by them. We are very happy with system and after service. Thanks a lot to team.
Third Eye vision performed excessive services that were not authorized,needed,or wanted.
Third eye vision was called to replace two cameras at my restaurant. They had been called before and had given an estimate in writing before any work began, therefore I felt I could trust they service. On April 1, a tech came to the business and a waiter showed the tech broken cameras. I was told the dvr needed replacing. $1800 parts and labor. I expected the next step to be a written estimate for clarity & approval. However I was not given an opportunity to approve the work, I received no written estimate. On April 2 they came. Did work that was never discussed and presented an invoice $3174.77. In the previous camera job he had complained the the cables were a "mess" but I was not concerned about that and nothing was done. This time he took it upon himself to put the cables in "better order" and charged me hours of labor for doing this. I did not want that done. This was not needed or discussed. He also moved the location of the DVR into a different room creating more labor hours to be billed and left me with a set up I was unhappy with. Again not mention to me. I did not want the DVR location changed.I was upset but believing the system was completely set up I wrote them a check. Later on April 2nd I realized the tech did not complete the remote access which is critical. If I have no remote access cameras are useless as I live an hour away. I attempted to talk to him, but was meet with accusation,insults and yelling. He would not communicate in a way we could resolve the issue. I stopped payment on the check and wrote another for all cost except the DVR.I told him he installed a dvr not comparable to the previous and unsuitable for my needs. It was also a much more expensive dvr than a small restaurant would ever need, The price was $1865. He did not ever get written consent for this. Just to resolve the situation I was willing to pay for all work except unwanted, price inflated DVR. I wrote a second check for $1309.77. All cost paid except the DVR itself.I even agreed to pay for the labor he used to move the wiring, move and install a DVR I did not want to a location I did not want it.He refused saying now the DVR was used. The DVR sits safe in my office waiting to be returned to 3rd Eye. I will write another check for $1309.77. I have spent much time on resolving to no end.
The DVR sits safe in my office waiting to be returned to 3rd Eye. I will write another check for $1309.77. I have spent much time on resolving to no end.
See Attached
Our rm has the pleasure of representing Third Eye Vision Corporation ("TEVCO") with
respect to the complaint recently led by ***s ("Ms.") on behalf of ***
*** Corp, d/b/a *** (hereinafter "***") on April 17, 2019. TEVCO takes this matter
very seriously and appreciate: the opportunity to respond.
We understand from the complaint that *** has alleged that TEVCO performed
excessive services that were not authorized, needed or wanted. This is simply not the case. TEVCO
has performed several hours of research in respect of the work performed for *** on April 2,
2019, and its research reveals the following:
0 In late March 2019 or early April, TEVCO received a call from a gentleman by the
name of ***, who was the manager of the *** restaurant located at 422 S.
Alafaya Trial, #20, ***, Florida 32828 (the "Property").
0 *** called to schedule an appointment for TEVCO to service a security camera
system that was not functioning properly.
On April 1, 2019, TEVCO went to the Property to diagnose the security camera
problem and discovered that ***'s existing Digital Video Recorder ("DVR")
was not functioning properly and was emitting audible alerts when plugged into a
power supply.
TEVCO ran a diagnostic on the DVR which revealed that ***'s existing DVR
was not functional.
Based on the diagnostic results, TEVCO requested that *** obtain authorization
from ***'s owner to proceed with a replacement of the DVR system. The
scope of work was to include (i) installing a new DVR; and (ii) moving the DVR
power supply connection and cabling trom the ceiling to existing indoor shelving
in order to clean up what was a disorganized ball of wiring. The price quoted for
the work to be performed was $1,865, plus labor and taxes.
*** authorized the work to be performed and the next day, on April 2, 2019,
TEVCO appeared at the Property with three (3) technicians who (i) installed a new
DVR; and (ii) moved the DVR power supply connection and cabling from the
ceiling to the new designated area. When the work was complete, TEVCO
discovered that two previously installed cameras were not working, so with
customer approval, TEVCO replaced the two non-functioning cameras with two
brand new cameras. Before and aer photos, with annotations, of the work
performed by TEVCO are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (before) and Exhibit
E (after)-
With the equipment installed, TEVCO started to setup the soware needed to view
the camera images om a remote location on cellphone or tablet application as
opposed to viewing the image through a web browser on a computer. Remote
access through a cellphone or tablet app is the industry standard; however, TEVCO
leamed that ***'s owner did not want to use an app to access the camera
images. Instead, *** wanted to remotely view the camera images using a web
browser. As a result, TEVCO requested that *** obtain a static IP address from
its intemet provider so the DVR system could be manually congured for optimum
performance. Because *** did not have a static lP address, 'TEVCO offered to
temporarily congure the DVR system using *** ("Peer to Peer") technology. ***
technology simplies the process of linking the DVR with a smartphone via client
application or client soware on PC or MAC, and would have provided ***
with temporary use of the DVR until a static IP was set up, but *** refused to
use the *** technology offered by TEVCO. Instead, *** ordered a static IP
setup from ***, and TEVCO agreed to return and congure the DVR system
when *** was nished setting up a static IP.
On April 2, 2019, TEVCO generated an invoice (Inv. #*** -- the "Invoice")
for $3,174.77, which invoice was signed by *** on behalf of ***. A tme and
correct copy of the Invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The Invoice properly
outlines the charges incurred for the work performed, which *** had
previously authorized. Nothing more than what was originally agreed to was
charged. '
0 On April 2, 2019, *** issued a check to TEVCO (Check # ***) for
$3,174.77 for the work performed and the equipment installed. A true and correct
copy of Check #*** is attached hereto as ' ' "
Exhibit "D
I On April 2 and 3, 2019, TEVCO followed up with *** and asked whether
*** had setup the static IP so TEVCO could return to the Property and
properly congure the new DVR. Both times TEVCO was informed that ***
had not installed the static IP.
0 On April 4'1', TEVCO followed up with *** and asked if the static (P and new
modem had been installed by ***. At 5:23pm that day, TEVCO received a
message from *** saying that a *** tech was on site setting up the static IP.
TEVCO went to the Property nalize its conguration of the DVR, but ***
still had not completed its task, the static IP was not working, and the DVR did not
have an internet connection.
0 On April 5, 2019, TEVCO went to the Property to check on the status of the static
(P setup and to let *** know that a stop payment had been ordered on Check
#W914. *** was not aware that a stop payment had been ordered, but he did
inform TEVCO that ***'s owner no longer wanted TEVCO on the Property
and asked its representatives to leave. Minutes later, *** informed TEVCO that
***'s owner would decide when TEVCO could return to remove its equipment
from the Property. *** also informed TEVCO that ***'s owner would decide
what charges on the Invoice would be paid.
0 Upon information and belief, the newly installed cameras and devices are still
located at the Property and are being used by ***. TEVCO has not received
any complaint from *** regarding the performance of the equipment installed
and has not received payment of Invoice #***.
It is quite unfortunate to hear that *** does not intend to pay for the extensive work
its manager authorized. TEVCO is of the rm belief that *** simply desires to avoid payment
for the work TEVCO performed and is now utilizing the Revdex.com complaint process to squeeze
TEVCO into providing a discount. While TEVCO is hopeful this matter can be resolved without
legal action, TEVCO is fully prepared to pursue its rights in a court of law in the event ***
does not uphold its end of the bargain, because nonpayment for services performed, coupled with
a direct action to harm TEVCO's business and reputation, will not be tolerated. TEVCO maintains
an A+ rating by the Revdex.com and it intends to protect its rating and reputation by all
available means.
Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
However detailed and lengthy the company's response their response remains irrelevant as well as inaccurate. Upon further inspection of the work performed by Third eye, another security company discovered the DVR that was replaced was in fact only in need of a new power cord. The DVR did not need replacing and was not "fried" as stated by Third Eye. A $12.00 power cord was purchased and the original DVR was reconnected. Third eye has wasted much of my time and energy while leaving the job unfinished, and creating the need for an addition company to be hired. I would not recommend them to anyone. I will not pursue the cost I could claim against Third Eye, it's simply not worth any more of my time. However Third eye did hire an attorney who sent me a demand letter asking for less money than my original offer which I made in my Revdex.com complaint and return of DVR. Of course I agreed to both. After I agreed to return unneeded DVR. I wrote a check for amount requested and immediately sent via email to attorney. Lawyer's response on April 29th was a threat to refuse this agreement unless I withdrew my complaint to Revdex.com. See email attached. This is extortion, unethical and in fact illegal. As a consumer I have a right to utilize the Revdex.com as a source of mediation, without paying for a lawyer. As a member of the Revdex.com Third Eye has agreed to deal with complaints on the terms agreed to with the Revdex.com. Third Eye also has the right to work with the Revdex.com instead of continuing to pay attorney fees. I will not be bullied by this company or their lawyer. Third eye's conduct has been incompetent or unethical, perhaps both. Correspondence attached.