Unique Indoor Comfort

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:The partial refund of $for the service plan was denied due to the fact that the service plan was purchased to completely cover my boiler in the event of a system malfunction as indicated by the contract Accepting this refund would void this contract and the claim as a wholeWhen my boiler malfunctioned in January it was Unique’s decision to shut my system down due to high CO levelsHigh CO levels are not a direct indication of the need to replace the system, but that was the only option I was given from UniqueUnique decided that the system needed to be replaced even though nothing was determined to be broken with my systemOnce Unique decided that there was a need for my boiler to be replaced, the replacement of my system became my HVAC need that I, by the contractual language, already budgeted for the year with the purchase of the service planSo yes, the language of the Service Plan fine print does in fact allude to replacement coverageThe statements made by the company in regard to the service plan listed below support this claim "By enrolling in our Total Comfort Service Plan ALL of your HVAC needs are budgeted for the year." "Complete peace of mind." "With the Total Comfort Service Plan, you're COMPLETELY covered in the event of a system malfunction- parts and labor." "There are no hidden fees." Regards, [redacted]

My experience with the owner of Unique Indoor Comfort today was horrible. I purchased and had the company install an [redacted] 600 on 11/19/2011. The product is still under the original warranty. I called today to discuss the cost for replacement. I was told the replacement is free and the labor is $117. In addition, there would be a $75.00 service fee. When I questioned the additional $75.00 fee the owner told me, "You are wasting my time and getting on my nerves. You should of had us out every year (at a cost of $75.00 per visit, even though the manufacture of the product on the product website indicates yearly maintenance by the owner and a professional visit every five years.)" He then proceed to hang up on my and refused to answer my further telephone calls. I want others to know about the manner in which customers are treated and should avoid doing business with this company.

As we stated in our previous response to this complaint, this is the first ever complaint or confusion about the "marketing" of the Unique Indoor Comfort Service Plan.  As we explained previously,
The Unique Indoor Comfort Service Plan has provided
homeowners with heating and cooling coverage since 1967.  In 49 years, we have yet to field a complaint
associated with the misrepresentation of coverage.  Nowhere in our Service Plan fine print does
it mention or elude to replacement coverage. 
The fine print mentions providing a discount based on the value of a repair
towards replacement.We, Unique Indoor Comfort, offered to reimburse the homeowner for the value and remaining balance of the service plan after providing maintenance, repairing an oil leak and spending three hours in an attempt to "repair" the boiler during the service call on January 29th.  This offer was declined by the homeowner.  Once it was determined there was a safety recall and the boiler was not repairable, Unique Indoor Comfort offered a proposal to replace the boiler below "our" cost.  This proposal was accepted and agreed to by the homeowner.  With respect to selected marketing statements referred to by the homeowner:  The marketing statements, as by definition, are used to promote and connect a homeowner to the benefits of the Unique Indoor Comfort service plan.  As with any other form of marketing, these statements are not all encompassing or meant to provide complete understanding of a product of service.   The service plan has fine print to provide a greater understanding of what is offered by the Unique Indoor Comfort service plan.  The statement below specifically states an option to "take a credit toward a replacement" clearly indicating that system replacement is not part of the service plan coverage. 
At this moment, we are unclear of the homeowner's request, particularly after having offered a refund. for the service plan.  Moving forward and as a result of this complaint, Unique Indoor Comfort will add to the fine print specifically stating that equipment replacement is not part of the service plan coverage.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The partial refund of $181 for the service plan was denied
due to the fact that the service plan was purchased to completely cover my
boiler in the event of a system malfunction as indicated by the contract.
Accepting this refund would void this contract and the claim as a whole. When
my boiler malfunctioned in January it was Unique’s decision to shut my system
down due to high CO levels. High CO levels are not a direct indication of the
need to replace the system, but that was the only option I was given from
Unique. Unique decided that the system needed to be replaced even though
nothing was determined to be broken with my system. Once Unique decided that
there was a need for my boiler to be replaced, the replacement of my system
became my HVAC need that I, by the contractual language, already budgeted for
the year with the purchase of the service plan. So yes, the language of the Service
Plan fine print does in fact allude to replacement coverage. The statements
made by the company in regard to the service plan listed below support this
claim.
"By enrolling in our Total Comfort Service Plan ALL of
your HVAC needs are budgeted for the year."
"Complete peace of mind."
"With the Total Comfort Service Plan, you're COMPLETELY
covered in the event of a system malfunction- parts and labor."
"There are no hidden fees." 
Regards,[redacted]

The primary mission of Unique Indoor Comfort is to create an
exceptional experience for every customer.  We have done everything
possible to achieve our mission during our relationship with the homeowner. 
Since August and concluding with the events surround replacing the...

heating
system in January, we have gone above and beyond what can be reasonably
expected of us.  We operate as a customer service business and take great
pride in the relationships we build with our customers. 
It’s not customary or the goal of Unique Indoor Comfort to
prove is disprove fault in response to a customer complaint.  We recognize a complaint most often stems
from our failure to communicate or provide quality service, where
acknowledgement allows growth as a customer service organization.  We feel this is not one of those situations.  With respect to this specific complaint, Unique
Indoor Comfort feels there is a misrepresentation of the events including omittance
of important details in the complaint; factors such a nationwide recall on the
boiler due to deaths caused by carbon monoxide poisoning, an offer from Unique
Indoor Comfort a prorated service plan refund, and the fine print details absent
from the owners descriptions of the Total Comfort Service Plan.
Unique Indoor Comfort has been offering the same Service
Plan to homeowners providing heating and cooling coverage since 1967.  In
49 years, we have yet to field a complaint associated with the misconception of
coverage or a false understanding that replacement was part of the service plan
terms.  Nowhere in the fine print does it mention or elude to replacement
coverage.  The fine print mentions providing a discount based on the value
of a repair towards replacement.  You are
welcome to see what was provided to this homeowner (see attached).
For further clarification, a timeline of our relationship
and the interactions with the homeowner are as follow:The owner of the property first became a service
plan customer in February of 2014.  The heating system service plan
expired a year later (February 2015) when the owner elected to not renew
coverage on the boiler (though it was offered via mail and follow up phone
calls).Unique Indoor Comfort was next contacted on
August 2015 as the owner expressed his desire to “renew” his service plan after
coverage expired 6 months prior.   At the
request of the owner, Unique Indoor Comfort scheduled a service technician to
perform the heating maintenance (included) in origination of the new service
plan.  It was during this visit that the
technician discovered a leaking oil filter requiring repair.  Unique indoor Comfort happily approved to
make the repair under the terms of the new service plan (even though coverage
was not in place prior to the visit). 
This repair would total $250 without service plan coverage but was
included at no additional cost.  In
retrospect it is clear that the only reason the homeowner became interested in
renewing the plan was an attempt to get a free repair on a boiler he was aware
was not operating.Unique Indoor Comfort was contacted in the
afternoon (4:17pm) of Friday, January 29th due to a smell from the
heating system.  The technician arrived by 5:00pm and discovered a higher
than acceptable carbon monoxide level due to “sooting” of the boiler requiring
an extensive cleaning.  In order to recommission the heating system, the
technician spent 3 hours to thoroughly clean the boiler.  Upon completion
the boiler continued to yield high CO levels, unacceptable and unsafe for
continued operation. The boiler was left off pending investigation and
communication with the manufacturer.  The service was covered by the
service plan.  On Saturday morning Unique Indoor Comfort
discovered a safety recall notice (from 1987) and potential for carbon monoxide
poisoning posted by the consumer product safety commission for the heating
system in question.  The recall is posted below.  http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/1987/CPSC-Warns-of-Potential-For-Carbon-Monoxide-...⇄ boiler manufacturer has previously gone
out of business.   Unique Indoor Comfort shared the recall notice
and commentary from the CPSC along with several trade resources on Saturday morning. 
Unfortunately there was no fix or repair that would guarantee the boiler’s safe
operation.  There was also no way to confirm or gain reassurance regarding
continue operation as the manufacture was no longer in business.  Given
the CO findings and circumstances surrounding the recall, Unique Indoor Comfort
recommended that the boiler be replaced.  The owner expressed uncertainty
and concern of the diagnosis at which Unique Indoor Comfort offered to
compensate the homeowner for a second opinion.  The hope here was to
provide reassurance to a series of strange events --- the owner choose to not
pursue this option.  After extensive conversations throughout
Saturday, the conclusion was to seek replacement.  Unique Indoor Comfort
sent a rep Saturday afternoon in order to determine replacement details. 
In good faith Unique Indoor Comfort arranged to provide a price for replacement
excluding the purchase price of the boiler.  There are any number of heating and air
conditioning companies open during the weekend --- a quick [redacted] search will
provide a list options. A replacement proposal was provided by Unique Indoor
Comfort on Sunday morning where the owner’s response was “I am waiting on one
other quote and third company Sunday afternoon”.  After receiving a second
opinion the owner decided to cancel the third company and agree to have Unique
Indoor Comfort replace the boiler.  One would assume because of the price
and concession made by Unique Indoor Comfort.  The owner asked that the
scope of work be modified due to another firm’s recommendation not part of the
Unique Indoor Comfort proposal --- Unique Indoor Comfort agreed at no
additional cost to the homeowner.  The terms and price were mutually
agreeable to both parties and executed as part of a signed contract.  The homeowner refers to the average cost to
replace a boiler as listed by [redacted].  Average is described as: a number expressing the central or typical value in a
set of data. There are a number of
factors that influence the typical cost of replacing a boiler.  The scope
of work related to replacing.  The
homeowner’s boiler was above average.  Some of the factors that influence
the scope and cost are the fact that it has three-zones, is an oil boiler and is
a boiler that not only provides heat to the home, but also heats the domestic
water.  In addition to those factors, Unique Indoor Comfort replaced all
near boiler components including all new circulator pumps to each zone. 
This type of installation and craftsmanship is not customarily considered
average.  To evaluate what a single resource in [redacted] may conclude
in connection to the work completed and price is misguided.  No pressure was ever applied to [redacted]
during this process; quite the opposite.  A compromise was agreed to by
both parties involved and signed off on prior to any work beginning.  A
copy of the dated and signed agreement is attached. 
It is our desire that this complaint be dismissed as Unique
Indoor Comfort has gone above and beyond what would be expected or required by
an organization in our situation.  From the beginning we have operated
with the safety and best interest of the owner and tenant in mind.  Unique
Indoor Comfort has communicated clearly with [redacted] throughout the process
in an attempt to educate him with the history and dangers of his boiler and
provide him with his options moving forward.  It seems that [redacted]’s point of contention is that the
service plan offered by Unique Indoor Comfort is misleading and should cover
the cost of replacing old equipment.  As previously pointed out, that is
not something that has been misunderstood in the previous 49 years of
operation.  Furthermore it would obviously be a poor business practice
that would not allow Unique Indoor Comfort to remain in business; a $420
service plan that covered a replacement that typically costs over $7,300. 
That would require 18 years of plan coverage for Unique Indoor Comfort to break
even…Thank you for your attention to this matter.  We trust
that the Revdex.com will find that our actions while dealing with
this situation have been fair, with good intentions and professionally
handled.  Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further question.
Respectfully,
Graham L[redacted]