Woolum's Customs, LLC

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/07/06) */
[redacted] was installed on 5-17-2016. He called in on 5-25-2016, and inquired if all tests were sent to the state, because he was "playing around with the device, and testing it like a breathalyzer." He was informed not to play around with...

device, and reports were sent to the state. [redacted] again called in to Budget IID on Sunday 5-16-2016 claiming device issues. He was forwarded to his service center where they dispatched a mobile tech to [redacted]'s residence. After multiple tests, the tech determined the interlock device was preventing the car from starting as designed. The data logs revealed a start up had been attempted, and due to the extreme high levels of blood alcohol detected ,went into a block start up state for 5 hours. [redacted] was notified of this, but would not accept his explanation. According to the tech [redacted] was asking for a refund of all of his money for his inconvenience. Throughout the following week [redacted] called in multiple times insisting Budget IID refund his money.Our staff explained to him each time that our device was working correctly, according to the program, and that he was not entitled to a refund. As a courtesy, we did not charge [redacted] for the mobile service, but he kept insisting on a full refund. It should be noted [redacted] said to the tech he had been drinking alcohol beverages the night before the incident, and openly admitted to our staff in recorded conversations, that he has a problem with alcohol. We have determined the device worked as it should, and prevented Mr. Capon from driving while intoxicated. We also advised [redacted] once we had completed our internal investigation report, it would be forwarded to the MVD.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/07/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Budget IID is diverting from the numerous emails I sent to reconcile charges that were never disclosed to me, readings that made no sense when no alcohol was consumed, a reading of "HI," which is indicated nowhere on their product description, which is when I called the [redacted] to witness the reading. Once again, the officer stated that he had "never" seen anything like it and verbally determined that "I was not impaired."
I have a copy of the incident report from the [redacted], a photo of the "Hi" reading, emails regarding charges that could not be explained and it is incorrect that they "did not charge me" for the mobile service. Not only did I give the tech a check for $75, but they also charged my partner's card $50+ dollars numerous times for the reset. Then, they harassed me in numerous emails that the charge was only pending, which means the funds were only being held by the bank and not released. I have an email trail of that as well.
Basically, their product is in "beta," which was substantiated by the tech. Also, the tech agreed that a reading of "hi" means nothing.
In addition, the company is impossible to reach and does not offer service as advertised.
Also, any problem with alcohol I may have is personal business and Budget IID does not have clinicians on their staff.
It is my belief that their equipment is in "beta" mode and not ready to be offered to the public before all the kinks are worked out, their billing methods are lacking and not transparent, there is no description on any of their literature to describe a reading that says "hi." They never offered any sort of concession and they are using false advertising on their web page as they are completely unavailable.
I would like to pursue this matter further.
THankyou,
[redacted], MS, MBA
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 48, 2016/08/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This company has refused to accept any responsibility whatsover. There are numerous people,including [redacted] and [redacted], along with documentation that will contradict all they claim.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 45, 2016/08/10) */
"A $75 charge for removal was never explained to me" Is an inaccurate statement from [redacted] acknowledges with his signature on the service agreement the removal charges ( see attached) Budget IID did not charge early termination, because we asked [redacted] to come in and remove his device due to the multitude of concerns we had. Including but not limited to his issue with violations, while admitting drinking alcohol the previous evening to our tech, and problems with alcohol in a recorded conversation he had with our back office. Our concerns also were due to his solvency. He gave us another person's debit card, which did not have sufficient funds for a violation reset. He says that he told [redacted] it was a one time charge, but the service center does not recall this, and there were no notes he even called billing about this. To this day, he has not offered another card to make good of the removal fee. If he calls into billing they will be more than happy to accept a different card, and refund [redacted] card. In addition he also bounced a check for a mobil service, and his offering to make it good was to have the tech come to his house, and write another. We are in the service business, and do everything we can to help our customer's. [redacted] was the first customer we have ever asked to remove his device.