Wave Float Rooms LLC

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Float Therapy Systems was paid in full before the delivery of the system We were guaranteed, verbally and in written contract that the Float Room would be fully operational and meet all state compliance codes The business represented that they had experience nationally and even internationally Since the installation of the float room in late December 2014, we have not received timely communication responses from the vendor for issues that have arisen As of the date of this response, we are on a two week waiting period for the replacement of panel that will allow the fan to work thus causing the pump to move the water The unit is leaking and has already gathered rust Temperatures are not able to be controlled due to lack of a working fan and thus again we are faced with an unusable product Regards, [redacted]

[redacted] LLC purchased a float therapy room from my company, Float Therapy Systems LLC, which was installed in late DecThe float room was in production for six to eight weeksWith less than one week before the product was to be delivered and installed, Float therapy systems received a phone call from the general contractor hired by [redacted] stating that, he thought that we were going to have a problem with the electrical inspector assigned to this jobI asked to speak with the electrical inspectorAfter explaining in detail how the system was set up, how it operated and the fact that all of the components installed in the system are UL listed components, the electrical inspector told me, now that I understand the system better, I don't believe that there will be any issuesWe would not have installed the float room if we thought that it would not pass the electrical inspectionAs of the date of this response, we have float rooms installed in, New York, Ontario, CA, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, Connecticut, and Vancouver, BCWe have never had any issues with code compliance and we did not expect to have any in Minnesota, where [redacted] is locatedAfter the installation, it was expected that the local electrical inspector would pass the system for use as did every other electrical inspector that we have encountered, but this inspector would be differentAfter visiting the [redacted] facility to inspect the system, he and his superior, decided that they were going to require that the entire float room and all of its components be UL listed as a complete assemblyThis would be virtually imposableAfter speaking with the head electrical inspector, I was told of another optionThey would accept and pass the system if it was field verified by an electrical engineer licensed in the State of MinnesotaThrough this, we found out that the control components would need to be UL listed as an assemblyIt was not good enough that each component was a listed component, they want the combination of components to be listed a complete assemblyIn order to satisfy the electrical inspection authorities, we decided to contract with an electrical panel shop authorized to build the control system as a UL listed systemThe system had to be custom designed, built, programmed and tested, before it could be installedOnce it was complete, it was shipped to MinnesotaI then flew to Minnesota and stayed for two days to install and test the new systemEverything worked well and I flew back homeThe general contractor then called the inspector to notify him that the new UL listed control system that he said was needed before he could pass the float room for use, had been installed and is now ready to be inspectedThe electrical inspector told him that he will not come out to inspect the system until it was certified by an electrical engineer licensed in MinnesotaThe system was designed by an electrical engineer, built by a UL certified electrical panel shop, and labeled appropriately as per its UL listing, and this was still not good enough for the local inspection authoritiesAfter calling quite a few electrical engineers in Minnesota, we found one that was willing to do this for usHe came out to the [redacted] facility and inspected the systemUsing a different set of rules than the electrical inspector insisted on, he found some items that he wanted done differentlyAfter the adjustments were made, and the electrical engineer had granted his certification based on his field verification, you would think that the process would finally be completeNo, the electrical inspection authorities also needed the electrical engineer to file a page remediation report and an page safety evaluation letter with the State of Minnesota's department of labor and industry for their review and approvalOnce the approval was granted the electrical inspector put his certification label on the system and granted [redacted] the approval to use the float roomThe float room has been in use since the 1st week in MayThere are a couple of warranty items that we are currently addressing, but these issues do not affect the use of the float room system The whole process of this approval took approximately monthsAnything that I could do to keep it moving, I didWe also went through great expense, almost $7000.00, seeking the approval of the State of Minnesota for this float roomI understand the aggravation that the owners of [redacted] have endured, but to place the blame for having an unusable float room, on Float therapy systems, is unfair and unrealisticThe process that the State of Minnesota put all of us through was grueling, but we never stopped trying to satisfy the states requestsIn the end the approval was granted and the float room is up and running

[redacted] LLC purchased a float therapy room from my
company, Float Therapy Systems LLC, which was installed in late Dec. 2014. The
float room was in production for six to eight weeks. With less than one week
before the product was to be delivered and installed, Float therapy systems
received a...

phone call from the general contractor hired by [redacted] stating
that, he thought that we were going to have a problem with the electrical inspector
assigned to this job. I asked to speak with the electrical inspector. After
explaining in detail how the system was set up, how it operated and the fact
that all of the components installed in the system are UL listed components,
the electrical inspector told me, now that I understand the system better, I
don't believe that there will be any issues. We would not have installed the
float room if we thought that it would not pass the electrical inspection. As
of the date of this response, we have float rooms installed in, New York,
Ontario, CA, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, Connecticut, and Vancouver, BC. We
have never had any issues with code compliance and we did not expect to have
any in Minnesota, where [redacted] is located. After the installation, it was
expected that the local electrical inspector would pass the system for use as
did every other electrical inspector that we have encountered, but this
inspector would be different. After visiting the [redacted] facility to inspect
the system, he and his superior, decided that they were going to require that
the entire float room and all of its components be UL listed as a complete
assembly. This would be virtually imposable. After speaking with the head
electrical inspector, I was told of another option. They would accept and pass
the system if it was field verified by an electrical engineer licensed in the
State of Minnesota. Through this, we found out that the control components
would need to be UL listed as an assembly. It was not good enough that each
component was a listed component, they want the combination of components to be
listed a complete assembly. In order to satisfy the electrical inspection
authorities, we decided to contract with an electrical panel shop authorized to
build the control system as a UL listed system. The system had to be custom
designed, built, programmed and tested, before it could be installed. Once it
was complete, it was shipped to Minnesota. I then flew to Minnesota and stayed
for two days to install and test the new system. Everything worked well and I
flew back home. The general contractor then called the inspector to notify him
that the new UL listed control system that he said was needed before he could
pass the float room for use, had been installed and is now ready to be
inspected. The electrical inspector told him that he will not come out to
inspect the system until it was certified by an electrical engineer licensed in
Minnesota. The system was designed by an electrical engineer, built by a UL
certified electrical panel shop, and labeled appropriately as per its UL
listing, and this was still not good enough for the local inspection
authorities. After calling quite a few electrical engineers in Minnesota, we
found one that was willing to do this for us. He came out to the [redacted] facility and inspected the system. Using a different set of rules than the
electrical inspector insisted on, he found some items that he wanted done
differently. After the adjustments were made, and the electrical engineer had
granted his certification based on his field verification, you would think that
the process would finally be complete. No, the electrical inspection
authorities also needed the electrical engineer to file a 10 page remediation
report and an 8 page safety evaluation letter with the State of Minnesota's
department of labor and industry for their review and approval. Once the
approval was granted the electrical inspector put his certification label on
the system and granted [redacted] the approval to use the float room. The float
room has been in use since the 1st week in May. There are a couple of warranty
items that we are currently addressing, but these issues do not affect the use
of the float room system.
 The whole process of this approval took approximately 4 months. Anything
that I could do to keep it moving, I did. We also went through great expense,
almost $7000.00, seeking the approval of the State of Minnesota for this float
room. I understand the aggravation that the owners of [redacted] have endured,
but to place the blame for having an unusable float room, on Float therapy
systems, is unfair and unrealistic. The process that the State of Minnesota put
all of us through was grueling, but we never stopped trying to satisfy the
states requests. In the end the approval was granted and the float room is up
and running.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Float Therapy Systems was paid in full before the delivery of the system.  We were guaranteed, verbally and in written contract that the Float Room would be fully operational and meet all state compliance codes.  The business represented that they had experience nationally and even internationally.  Since the installation of the float room in late December 2014, we have not received timely communication responses from the vendor for issues that have arisen.  As of the date of this response, we are on a two week waiting period for the replacement of panel that will allow the fan to work thus causing the pump to move the water.  The unit is leaking and has already gathered rust.  Temperatures are not able to be controlled due to lack of a working fan and thus again we are faced with an unusable product. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Any new components, fan, controller program, trim molding, etc. have been delivered and installed.