We live in a 55+community and have recently had a new elevator installed. It took 8 weeks for the elevator to be installed which handicapped many of our residents stranded in their apartments since they were unable to climb the steps. Since the elevator was finished this past May, (2 months ago), it has broken down 7 times, sometimes twice in one day! Residents have used the elevator to go to doctors' appointments or other errands in the morning and by the time they return, the elevator is not working again! Then the fire rescue truck has to be called! This is unacceptble! There are elderly and handicapped people in this building! This Company is NOT recommended!
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Unfortunately, the modernization work to the elevator system should not have damaged our access system The system was damaged due to TK's negligence in cutting and ripping out wires and not putting them back in their original condition At no time were we informed that our system would be inoperable at the conclusion of the modernization (if that was the intended result) Instead, we had no clue as to why our access system was inoperable MrG [redacted] told me personally, that cutting those wires was NOT the intent and that they'd take full responsibility for its repair, including payment of the invoice Here's is MrG [redacted] 's email: “We really need [redacted] to be there at the same time as us to put this thing to bedPlease let me know when they can be there and I will coordinate with a TKE technicianYou can send us the bill.”Bottom line is that our system was damaged by TK's work and their company should pay the expenses associated with its repair, especially since they accepted responsibility (in writing) and asked us to send them the bill, which we did back in November I'm not sure how much more clear this can be Sincerely, [redacted] ***
Re: Complaint [redacted] Portland Oregon, 97209 I am rejecting your response because: ThyssenKrupp Elevator was contracted to do the modernization of the elevator system, only. At no time was ThyssenKrupp Elevator contracted to provide electrical services, fire alarm service, alarm system services, building work or any other work associated with the modernization. All other work, by others, was specifically excluded from the ThyssenKrupp Elevator contract and was to be supplied by the owner; in the case [redacted] ***. If there were outstanding scope items or Invoices, they are solely the responsibility of the owner. The quote referenced in your letter that Mr. G [redacted] made was to help coordinate, not to fix the security system. That was your responsibility with [redacted] . Furthermore, the coordination that had to be done between Aronson and ThysenKrupp Elevator was not included in our proposal and contract. The offer to pay was in reference to us paying for our technician to help coordinate which was thousands of dollars. We did in fact do the coordination as outlined and did not charge for this service as per the email. Bottom line is this. If we were going pay for the security system we would have asked for a quote from the vendor. That is how business is done. ThyssenKrupp Elevator was not contracted to do any work with Aronson or any other contractor. Any work they were asked to do should have been contracted with very specific terms and conditions through [redacted] ***. I have addressed this multiple times with [redacted] ***. If she contracted with Aronson, then she is the responsible party to pay them. We have made this same argument with [redacted] several times and our position has remained the same each time. ThyssenKrupp is simply not going to pay another vendor because the owner made a mistake in clearly defining the scope of work to the other trades involved. ThyssenKrupp Elevator considers this matter closed.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Unfortunately, the modernization work to the elevator system should not have damaged our access system. The system was damaged due to TK's negligence in cutting and ripping out wires and not putting them back in their original condition. At no time were we informed that our system would be inoperable at the conclusion of the modernization (if that was the intended result). Instead, we had no clue as to why our access system was inoperable. Mr. G[redacted] told me personally, that cutting those wires was NOT the intent and that they'd take full responsibility for its repair, including payment of the invoice. Here's is Mr. G[redacted]'s email: “We really need [redacted] to be there at the same time as us to put this thing to bed. Please let me know when they can be there and I will coordinate with a TKE technician. You can send us the bill.”Bottom line is that our system was damaged by TK's work and their company should pay the expenses associated with its repair, especially since they accepted responsibility (in writing) and asked us to send them the bill, which we did back in November. I'm not sure how much more clear this can be. Sincerely,[redacted]
Re: Complaint [redacted] Portland Oregon, 97209 I am rejecting your response because: ThyssenKrupp Elevator was contracted to do the modernization of the elevator system, only. At no time was ThyssenKrupp Elevator contracted to provide electrical services, fire alarm service, alarm system services, building work or any other work associated with the modernization. All other work, by others, was specifically excluded from the ThyssenKrupp Elevator contract and was to be supplied by the owner; in the case [redacted]. If there were outstanding scope items or Invoices, they are solely the responsibility of the owner. The quote referenced in your letter that Mr. G[redacted] made was to help coordinate, not to fix the security system. That was your responsibility with [redacted]. Furthermore, the coordination that had to be done between Aronson and ThysenKrupp Elevator was not included in our proposal and contract. The offer to pay was in reference to us paying for our technician to help coordinate which was thousands of dollars. We did in fact do the coordination as outlined and did not charge for this service as per the email. Bottom line is this. If we were going pay for the security system we would have asked for a quote from the vendor. That is how business is done. ThyssenKrupp Elevator was not contracted to do any work with Aronson or any other contractor. Any work they were asked to do should have been contracted with very specific terms and conditions through [redacted]. I have addressed this multiple times with [redacted]. If she contracted with Aronson, then she is the responsible party to pay them. We have made this same argument with [redacted] several times and our position has remained the same each time. ThyssenKrupp is simply not going to pay another vendor because the owner made a mistake in clearly defining the scope of work to the other trades involved.
ThyssenKrupp Elevator considers this matter closed.
The letter is in response to the letter received by ThyssenKrupp Elevator from the BetterBusiness Bureau in regards to the letter written by [redacted]. I am the Portland, OregonBranch Manager for ThyssenKrupp Elevator and it is in that capacity that I am responding tothe aforementioned...
letter.ThyssenKrupp Elevator was contracted to do a modernization of the elevator system located[redacted], Beaverton, Oregon. The scope of the contract was limited tomodernization of the elevator system. All work by others, including wiring was specificallyexcluded from our contract and managed by the owner. Any work outside the elevator scope isthe responsibility of the owner.After the modernization of the elevators was complete, the security system needed to be wiredand reinstalled much like any other elevator modernization project. To my knowledge, thatscope of work was contracted to be done by the owner with [redacted]. ThyssenKrupp Elevatormade multiple attempts to get the owner's subcontractor, [redacted], onsite to determine asolution to the security issues. [redacted] did not respond to the communication fromThyssenKrupp and in fact missed multiple scheduled appointments.I understand that Mr. G[redacted], from the ThyssenKrupp Office, suggested that we would payfor [redacted] to come to the site to determine the problem with the security system. Keep inmind this was in reference to diagnosing the root cause of the problem with our ThyssenKrupptechnician. It was in no way an acknowledgement that ThyssenKrupp would pay for fixing thesecurity system. Again, the owner had a contract with [redacted] to do this work notThyssenKrupp.It should also be noted that ThyssenKrupp Elevator incurred several thousand dollars ofexpenses due to the lack of performance and misdiagnoses of [redacted]. Our technicians mademultiple trips to the building only to find that [redacted] was not contacted by the owner to beonsite. When [redacted] finally did meet our technician, it took our
technician nearly 2 days of assisting them for [redacted] to complete their scope of work. Thistime on site with our technician was never billed to the customer.It is the opinion ol ThyssenKrupp Elevator that any costs associated between the owner and[redacted] are ta be settled between them as they had an agreement to do business. At no timedid ThyssenKrupp Elevator have a contract of anyway with [redacted].It is true that ThyssenKrupp Elevator is a service provider and providing the highest level ofcustomer service is our top priority. The fact that the owner chose to use another serviceprovider had absolutely no bearing on our decision in this matter. The decision was solelybased on who we were contracted with to do the elevator modernization and the agreed uponscope of work within the contract.
Sincerely,
Josh J[redacted]
Branch Manager
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Clearly Mr. J[redacted] is not understanding the issue. Through the modernization work, Thyssen Krupp DAMAGED our access system by cutting wires that they WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO CUT. Bill G[redacted] indicated that this was their MISTAKE and that it should NOT HAVE BEEN LEFT IN THAT STATE. So, by TK's position, they could have punched holes in walls, damaged flooring, or vandalized anything they chose to, and the owner would be on the hook for the repairs? This is what you're saying? AT NO TIME DID TK INDICATE THAT THE ACCESS SYSTEM WOULD NOT BE WORKING AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR WORK, NOR THAT IT WOULD BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY, NOR THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HIRE ANOTHER FIRM TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ANYTHING. If you're insinuating that the damaged wiring was EXPECTED, then why was that not part of the original paperwork like the separate contract with Stoner Electric for other work related to this modernization? TK made a MISTAKE per Bill G[redacted] and Bill G[redacted] promised to pay for that MISTAKE. Sincerely,[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Unfortunately, the modernization work to the elevator system should not have damaged our access system The system was damaged due to TK's negligence in cutting and ripping out wires and not putting them back in their original condition At no time were we informed that our system would be inoperable at the conclusion of the modernization (if that was the intended result) Instead, we had no clue as to why our access system was inoperable MrG [redacted] told me personally, that cutting those wires was NOT the intent and that they'd take full responsibility for its repair, including payment of the invoice Here's is MrG [redacted] 's email: “We really need [redacted] to be there at the same time as us to put this thing to bedPlease let me know when they can be there and I will coordinate with a TKE technicianYou can send us the bill.”Bottom line is that our system was damaged by TK's work and their company should pay the expenses associated with its repair, especially since they accepted responsibility (in writing) and asked us to send them the bill, which we did back in November I'm not sure how much more clear this can be Sincerely, [redacted] ***
Re: Complaint [redacted] Portland Oregon, 97209 I am rejecting your response because: ThyssenKrupp Elevator was contracted to do the modernization of the elevator system, only. At no time was ThyssenKrupp Elevator contracted to provide electrical services, fire alarm service, alarm system services, building work or any other work associated with the modernization. All other work, by others, was specifically excluded from the ThyssenKrupp Elevator contract and was to be supplied by the owner; in the case [redacted] ***. If there were outstanding scope items or Invoices, they are solely the responsibility of the owner. The quote referenced in your letter that Mr. G [redacted] made was to help coordinate, not to fix the security system. That was your responsibility with [redacted] . Furthermore, the coordination that had to be done between Aronson and ThysenKrupp Elevator was not included in our proposal and contract. The offer to pay was in reference to us paying for our technician to help coordinate which was thousands of dollars. We did in fact do the coordination as outlined and did not charge for this service as per the email. Bottom line is this. If we were going pay for the security system we would have asked for a quote from the vendor. That is how business is done. ThyssenKrupp Elevator was not contracted to do any work with Aronson or any other contractor. Any work they were asked to do should have been contracted with very specific terms and conditions through [redacted] ***. I have addressed this multiple times with [redacted] ***. If she contracted with Aronson, then she is the responsible party to pay them. We have made this same argument with [redacted] several times and our position has remained the same each time. ThyssenKrupp is simply not going to pay another vendor because the owner made a mistake in clearly defining the scope of work to the other trades involved. ThyssenKrupp Elevator considers this matter closed.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Unfortunately, the modernization work to the elevator system should not have damaged our access system. The system was damaged due to TK's negligence in cutting and ripping out wires and not putting them back in their original condition. At no time were we informed that our system would be inoperable at the conclusion of the modernization (if that was the intended result). Instead, we had no clue as to why our access system was inoperable. Mr. G[redacted] told me personally, that cutting those wires was NOT the intent and that they'd take full responsibility for its repair, including payment of the invoice. Here's is Mr. G[redacted]'s email: “We really need [redacted] to be there at the same time as us to put this thing to bed. Please let me know when they can be there and I will coordinate with a TKE technician. You can send us the bill.”Bottom line is that our system was damaged by TK's work and their company should pay the expenses associated with its repair, especially since they accepted responsibility (in writing) and asked us to send them the bill, which we did back in November. I'm not sure how much more clear this can be. Sincerely,[redacted]
Re: Complaint [redacted] Portland Oregon, 97209 I am rejecting your response because: ThyssenKrupp Elevator was contracted to do the modernization of the elevator system, only. At no time was ThyssenKrupp Elevator contracted to provide electrical services, fire alarm service, alarm system services, building work or any other work associated with the modernization. All other work, by others, was specifically excluded from the ThyssenKrupp Elevator contract and was to be supplied by the owner; in the case [redacted]. If there were outstanding scope items or Invoices, they are solely the responsibility of the owner. The quote referenced in your letter that Mr. G[redacted] made was to help coordinate, not to fix the security system. That was your responsibility with [redacted]. Furthermore, the coordination that had to be done between Aronson and ThysenKrupp Elevator was not included in our proposal and contract. The offer to pay was in reference to us paying for our technician to help coordinate which was thousands of dollars. We did in fact do the coordination as outlined and did not charge for this service as per the email. Bottom line is this. If we were going pay for the security system we would have asked for a quote from the vendor. That is how business is done. ThyssenKrupp Elevator was not contracted to do any work with Aronson or any other contractor. Any work they were asked to do should have been contracted with very specific terms and conditions through [redacted]. I have addressed this multiple times with [redacted]. If she contracted with Aronson, then she is the responsible party to pay them. We have made this same argument with [redacted] several times and our position has remained the same each time. ThyssenKrupp is simply not going to pay another vendor because the owner made a mistake in clearly defining the scope of work to the other trades involved.
ThyssenKrupp Elevator considers this matter closed.
The letter is in response to the letter received by ThyssenKrupp Elevator from the BetterBusiness Bureau in regards to the letter written by [redacted]. I am the Portland, OregonBranch Manager for ThyssenKrupp Elevator and it is in that capacity that I am responding tothe aforementioned...
letter.ThyssenKrupp Elevator was contracted to do a modernization of the elevator system located[redacted], Beaverton, Oregon. The scope of the contract was limited tomodernization of the elevator system. All work by others, including wiring was specificallyexcluded from our contract and managed by the owner. Any work outside the elevator scope isthe responsibility of the owner.After the modernization of the elevators was complete, the security system needed to be wiredand reinstalled much like any other elevator modernization project. To my knowledge, thatscope of work was contracted to be done by the owner with [redacted]. ThyssenKrupp Elevatormade multiple attempts to get the owner's subcontractor, [redacted], onsite to determine asolution to the security issues. [redacted] did not respond to the communication fromThyssenKrupp and in fact missed multiple scheduled appointments.I understand that Mr. G[redacted], from the ThyssenKrupp Office, suggested that we would payfor [redacted] to come to the site to determine the problem with the security system. Keep inmind this was in reference to diagnosing the root cause of the problem with our ThyssenKrupptechnician. It was in no way an acknowledgement that ThyssenKrupp would pay for fixing thesecurity system. Again, the owner had a contract with [redacted] to do this work notThyssenKrupp.It should also be noted that ThyssenKrupp Elevator incurred several thousand dollars ofexpenses due to the lack of performance and misdiagnoses of [redacted]. Our technicians mademultiple trips to the building only to find that [redacted] was not contacted by the owner to beonsite. When [redacted] finally did meet our technician, it took our
technician nearly 2 days of assisting them for [redacted] to complete their scope of work. Thistime on site with our technician was never billed to the customer.It is the opinion ol ThyssenKrupp Elevator that any costs associated between the owner and[redacted] are ta be settled between them as they had an agreement to do business. At no timedid ThyssenKrupp Elevator have a contract of anyway with [redacted].It is true that ThyssenKrupp Elevator is a service provider and providing the highest level ofcustomer service is our top priority. The fact that the owner chose to use another serviceprovider had absolutely no bearing on our decision in this matter. The decision was solelybased on who we were contracted with to do the elevator modernization and the agreed uponscope of work within the contract.
Sincerely,
Josh J[redacted]
Branch Manager
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Clearly Mr. J[redacted] is not understanding the issue. Through the modernization work, Thyssen Krupp DAMAGED our access system by cutting wires that they WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO CUT. Bill G[redacted] indicated that this was their MISTAKE and that it should NOT HAVE BEEN LEFT IN THAT STATE. So, by TK's position, they could have punched holes in walls, damaged flooring, or vandalized anything they chose to, and the owner would be on the hook for the repairs? This is what you're saying? AT NO TIME DID TK INDICATE THAT THE ACCESS SYSTEM WOULD NOT BE WORKING AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR WORK, NOR THAT IT WOULD BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY, NOR THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HIRE ANOTHER FIRM TO REPAIR OR REPLACE ANYTHING. If you're insinuating that the damaged wiring was EXPECTED, then why was that not part of the original paperwork like the separate contract with Stoner Electric for other work related to this modernization? TK made a MISTAKE per Bill G[redacted] and Bill G[redacted] promised to pay for that MISTAKE. Sincerely,[redacted]