Window World of North Puget Sound

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

2/16/Re: Complaint ID *** To Whom It May Concern, We have received and reviewed this customer’s complaint, and can address the individually-numbered concerns/charges as follows: 1- The sliding patio door screen delivered had a broken adjustment wheel. We
will replace it once the new screen door is received. The one currently in place is functional, it simply doesn’t roll in the track very smoothly2- The problem with the incorrectly sized windows was not a measurement issue, it was a communication error between us and the customer. The two windows in question were to be installed in brand-new openings in the wall created and framby the homeowner at a later date. The initial sales order reflected one desired size, but during the final measurement appointment, another (larger) size was discussed, and that was the size that was ordered and initially delivered. The customer does not recall this conversation, and since a written change order was not signed, we reordered one window to the smaller size at no charge (the homeowner only framed one new opening, so the second window was unnecessary.) This did require having a new window unit manufactured and delivered, so there was a lead time associated with installing the final window3- A baseless accusation of “cheating” customers is something we take very seriously, and will defend against vigorously. The installation charges the customer initially contacted us to dispute amounted to $300. This additional charge was because the customer’s home tested positive for the presence of lead-based paint, and there are additional steps to be taken for dust containment. This charge was neither hidden from the customer nor added at a later date. It is found on its own separate, clearly labelled line item on the initial sales contract, a copy of which is left with the customer. After the installation of the windows and door (with the exception of the wrong-size basement window), the customer contact us to state they felt they shouldn’t have needed to pay that $because in their own estimation the additional labor performed for the lead paint mitigation didn’t warrant that much of an additional charge. Essentially, they felt the dust barriers we erected simply weren’t extensive enough to be “worth” $As it turned out, due to the unusual nature of the way the existing windows were installed in the structure, this particular job didn’t require much dust management, as no interior painted surfaces were actually cut or disturbed by the work that we did. For this reason, we agreed to credit the customer back the $(which was both a perfectly reasonable and agreed-upon charge from the initial sale), plus an additional sum for the installation of the second basement window the customer decided not to install at all, plus an extra amount simply for customer goodwill. That is how the $credit was derived. We feel this credit, which amounted to roughly 10% of the sales agreement was generous, and was only issued because we felt it would make the customer happy. Apparently, this goodwill effort was in vain, as even after receiving a credit for the lead paint procedures cost, the customer contacted the State of Washington to complain about what they perceived to be inadequate lead paint practices. The state’s lead paint renovation inspector went to the jobsite to examine the situation, and contacted us with his findings. In short, he felt that the containment we performed was actually in excess of what would have been necessary under the law because of the lack of disturbance of interior painted surfaces due to our method of installation. He further stated that he informed the customer that we had fully complied with the EPA’s lead paint renovation guidelines. In short, the work we did was 100% compliant, and we still refunded that portion of the customer’s bill (plus extra) even though the charge was legitimate in the first place. Accusing a business of willfully “cheating” people is tantamount to accusing someone of a crime, and should not be undertaken without careful consideration as to the merits of the charge and the ramifications if that charge is false4- The claim that the installers were “inexperienced” is demonstrably untrue. The lead installer who completed this project has worked in residential window replacement full-time for approximately seven years. If any customer has a particular issue with the quality of the work of one of our employees, we are happy to take a look at it and address any concerns based on merit. But the claim “they hire inexperienced guys” is unsubstantiated in this case (no query was made with respect to the installers’ history of work in the trade), and also factually inaccurate. We are unable to corroborate or dispute the specific complaint of “dirt and crumbs” having been sealed underneath caulking. It is typical in this trade for small amounts of material (e.gsawdust) to be embedded in crevices around a window opening, and it is customary to apply caulking over those crevices5- We did have a manufacturing defect related to slightly bowed glass in the sliding panel of the patio door. This was addressed and corrected6- The $credit issued to this customer was explained thoroughly in section #above7- Concern #appears to be absent from the written complaint8- The customer financed the cost of the work, and the credit line was activated subsequent to the installation of the door and all of the windows (save the wrong-size basement window.) This was discussed with the customer at the time, but a day or two before the installation of that remaining basement window, the customer inquired as to why the account had already been activated. At that point, there would not have been enough time to reverse the balance on the line, only to reactivate that balance in two days’ time9- The customer appears to be confused about the terms of repayment of the credit line with Wells Fargo. Contrary to the complaint, their minimum payment is, indeed, 3% of the amount borrowed, just as the customer was told. The terms of the credit extended allow for zero interest charges to be due if the balance is paid in-full within months. A simple way to avoid paying interest on this loan might be to spread the entire balance over months so as to make all equal payments, but this is not required. We feel it is quite unjust and borderline defamatory to be explicitly called “liars” in a public forum by one who is simply mistaken about the easily-verified relevant factsIn conclusion, we are not certain what else the customer would like to feel their complaints are resolved (except the replacement screen door, which is on the way.) All the work is complete in a workmanlike manner, it looks good, and they received $off the bill Sincerely, Aaron A*** Owner, Window World of North Puget Sound

2/28/Re: Complaint ID *** To Whom It May Concern, We feel as though we previously stated our case fairly thoroughly, and while we and the customer may still disagree on some particulars, and some claims made were patently untrue, it appears there are no further resolution items requested (other than the screen, which will be replaced this week.) I would not disagree that in some cases we can do a better job of communicating timelines and expectations, and that is a valuable take-away from this experience. We acknowledge that we can’t always make everybody happy, but we do try, and we do make good-faith efforts to resolve issues as they ariseSincerely, Aaron A*** Owner, Window World of North Puget Sound

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  In responds to item #1   No broken wheel on screen door , wrong screen door is what the installer told me and if we would not have said something in the first place it would have been left as a unusable screen door . It will work now for about 3 times then it does not work .   Item # 2   I do agree that there was miscommunication, only one of these windows was installed and I had ask to get the labor removed for not installing the  second window. Item # 3 is the same as item # 2 if I would have not ask about this the company is just taking money for work that is not being done .  That is where the cheating comes from .  Item #4   First day on the job the installers told me that one had been installing for 2 years and the other was just at 2 weeks .  The installer that had been installing for 2 weeks did a poor job of removing old windows causing damage to trim that was not removed .  Never cleaned during the process and which leads to dirt and dust during the caulking process.  Item #5   Yes a bowed glass in the slider , waited on a different one for over 2 weeks and they brought out another one that was bowed also.  Waited another 2 to 3 weeks to get a good slider door , not once did this company keep me informed on what was happening I had to contact them to see what was going on ..  # 8   there was no discussion with us , we where told they where going to complete billing and did even thou we told them they should not because the job was not complete.  # 9  lack of or lack of proper communication , leaving info. out .    In conclusion they company did reduce $700.00 off the bill , most of it was for work that never got done or did not have to do in the first place  ,  and if I would have never said anything this company would have just gone about this as good business practice.  All work is still not done ( still need a good slider door )  I was not sure this was going to happen so I called to get a up-date.    It only looks good from a distance once a person gets a little close one can quickly tell it is not good workman like skilled project and I don't think Mr Aaron A[redacted] has even been back to look at the project.  Once we get the the proper slider door we are done with this company , the reason we write this is so the company can learn what better service they can provide and let the next person know what to expect.
Sincerely,
[redacted]