Waara Technology Reviews (%countItem)
Waara Technology Rating
Address: 144 Hall St # B, Traverse City, Michigan, United States, 49684
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Web: |
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for Waara Technology
Add new contacts
ADVERTISEMENT
On March 28,2019 we signed an agreement with Waara Technologies to install an audio/video system in our home which was under construction. Neither my husband nor I are technically literate and our sons live 300 miles away, so we were looking for support to install TVs and an audio system. We explained several times to the salesperson that we needed something SIMPLE as we did not understand the workings of the new TVs. We are not huge TV watchers. The salesperson told us the system would be so easy and that they would be there to support any issues into the future. The total contract amount was $21,688.87. While this seemed like a high price, we agreed because of the promised system. By 7/1/19 we had paid for 90% of the system. Our home was completed in July with a September move in. Numerous issues ensued and final payment was not made until October. Over four months the video system failed to work properly. The TVs turned on by themselves; the TVs wouldn't turn off; the volume controls would not work; voices were garbled or voices were not synced to the TV. We had numerous visits (too many to count) from the technicians and phone calls to the programming support person. Weekend calls were unanswered The system was neither SIMPLE nor did it even work. The company then had the nerve to bill us for "upgrades" that were not requested and only installed to make the system WORK which it never did. Finally, on January 21,2020 we met with the owner, Todd *** and requested the system be uninstalled for failure to work properly and consistently. The TVs were disconnected from the system on 1/22 and we received a $3,305.03 refund. I had to ask for an additional equipment refund of $126.14 for a ROKU they "forgot". Since we have still invested $18,257.70 I have asked 3 times for a detailed accounting of this investment. I've been told they bought back items as "a courtesy" and that they don't buy back because a customer "chooses another route". We didn't CHOOSE this. The system never WORKED
Other (requires explanation) 1. I want the detailed, line by line accounting of our $18,257.70 investment. This means a line by line dollar amount for all equipment still in the house 2. I want a third party review the equipment and tell us what is actually NEEDED. 3. I want a refund for the entire video system INCLUDING labor ($7,906.74 less the $3431.17 already refunded. We shouldn't pay for something that NEVER worked properly 4. I want a refund for equipment deemed unnecessary by the third party
This complaint is very inaccurate. The system this customer requested and purchased from us is a custom, whole home, audio, video, network, and control system, complete with a multi-room sound system with in-ceiling speakers and grouping capabilities, wall-mounted TVs, and universal remotes to allow them to avoid having to manage multiple remotes for a single room set up. The customer was given and walked through a report of the system (with all the parts listed) prior to us beginning any work, as they needed to approve the project before we did anything. We have since resent it. The equipment in our systems comes in packages, and are priced by these packages. The customer has always had access to those numbers and approved them, and our method of pricing prior to us moving forward with the project.
Of the 5 times that service was requested after the completion of the project, 3 of the issues were solved over the phone. For 1 of the times that we came out, the issue was solved by rebooting a piece of equipment and the final service call was solved updating the software on one of the Roku devices. For each of these issues, the customer was responded to within 24 hours, and with the exception of one service call, the problem was resolved within that same time frame. In the case of the exception, this issue was resolved within 48 hours. 2 of these issues were related to software updates from the manufacturers and would have occurred regardless of where the equipment was purchased. 1 was a user error.
In between the time of the main installation and the final billing of the project, we made 3 calls to make minor programming changes and 1 time to address an issue with a cable box (not supplied by us). The customer was not charged for any of the service calls, whether from before the final project billing or after.
The change order that we billed in addition to the project total that the customer initially agreed to amounted to $319.88 and covered the addition of a power conditioner to the system and the change of the models of a few pieces of equipment, as between the time when the customer approached us for the system and the time when they were ready for us to install, a few of our manufacturers had made updates to their equipment. Since the customer protested so strongly to this bill though, we absorbed those costs ourselves.
On January 21st, the customer came in and expressed frustration with the Control system and the Rokus and insisted that we removed them. We did so the next day. Prior to the removal, we tested the system and found it in proper working order. However, given the customer's discomfort with using it, we proceeded with the removal. As a courtesy, I issued a full refund on the product that we removed and did not charge any labor or restocking fees for the removal (it is common industry practice to charge a restocking fee, at the very least). As for the Roku device that was "forgotten" on the original refund check, if the customer cares to review their records, they will find that they were never charged for that piece in the first place. However, to appease this client and to try and avoid any disagreements, I issued payment for that device as well. Sadly, it has become clear that the customer has no intention to avoid a disagreement.
Between the time when we removed the system and when the customer received the refund check, they expressed to me multiple times their satisfaction with the system and the service we had provided. It was only after they received the check that the customer began complaining about the system again, as evidently the check was not of the size that they desired. They then began suggesting that they might want us to remove the rest of the system. They had very recently informed me that the system was working, as they worded it, perfectly. That being the case, I informed them that we would not be refunding the rest of the system.
To sum up, the customer approached us, requested a system, approved the system and the cost of it, and received that system. They at no time paid more than the price they agreed to. They requested we remove a portion of the system, even though it was in fine working condition. I agreed to do this and issued a refund. This pleased the customer until they found that the refund to be less than what they wanted. In reality, the amount I refunded is more than the amount that was paid for those pieces. Upon hearing that they would not be receiving more of a refund for this system (that they requested, approved, and described as working perfectly), the customer decided to express their displeasure here.
My team and I have been nothing but professional and courteous to the customer and this customer has consistently responded with impatience, accusations, demands, and threats. They even went so far as to directly insult one of my employees. I do not wish to reward this type of behavior, and sadly, I now feel that I already have, by issuing a refund for the amount that I did.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Several statements are inaccurate. First, the system was not in working order when the control system and ROKUs were disconnected. If the system worked, why would we ask to have it removed? The TVs continued to either not turn on or turn off and the volume controls did not work consistently. Second, when we sat with the salesman, we were clear that we did not understand these systems and we needed something simple. He showed us a remote indicated we could set up favorites and easily switch between systems. None of this was available with the remotes provided. When I questioned this, they indicated the remotes were for more complex systems. Third, the salesman indicated that the benefit of having a system installed by them would provide lifetime service without cost. So to claim they never charged us for service calls is inaccurate. It was part of the package and not a gratuity. He is accurate that the team was polite and professional. He is inaccurate that I ever threatened them (except with a Revdex.com complaint). We were never discourteous in any of our interactions.
At no time did we "directly insult" one of his employees. We did state that we felt we were taken advantage of because of our age and lack of knowledge of these systems. We asked for something "simple". We were promised "simple" and we did not receive what was promised. He is correct in saying we stated our TVs are working now since the system has been removed. He is correct that we signed for equipment prior to installation which was paid for in advance. We did NOT get a system that worked as promised. The equipment list signed for is bundled and doesn't provide the detail I requested. He is correct that I became increasingly upset after we received a very small refund for what we believed to be half of the system we purchased. We spent over $21,000 and the video system NEVER worked properly. The additional moneys requested and not paid were not our responsibility because they were required as an attempt to create a working system - which was NEVER achieved. My final comment is that the Revdex.com should note that interactions with this business requires a level of knowledge of audio/visual systems. I feel very strongly that our lack of knowledge and understanding of complex A/V systems provided an opportunity for the business to oversell and over promise its functionality.