Unnecessary repairs done and technician was going to do further unnecessary repairs until asked to leave
On 6-23-12 technician (Paul Broomhall) was called about hot water being out and boiler unable to light pilot. Technician replaced T-stat (thermostat?) and Honeywell expansion tank on boiler and charged 2 hours labor ($150.44), travel fee ($49.00), and parts ($249.56) and tax ($18.96). Hot water went out 3 days later. On 6-26-12 technician returned and began to replace iginitor and gas valve.
My fiance (****) asked to talk to technician and was questioning the time involved and if the previous problem had been misdiagnosed. Technician spoke with him briefly on the phone and agreed to a refund for the work and technician refused to speak with **** when he arrived at the house.
There had been confusion on which work the technician was refunding the charges for as he began to pull out the parts he had previously installed on June 23. Due to the technician's angry reactions, customer was frightened of technician, customer asked technician to leave the June 23 work as is and leave. Technician also had asked if the customer had tools he could use.
Bottom line to this point: T-Stat and expansion tank installed on June 23 for $467.96 which was paid by the customer. Technician would have replaced ignitor and gas valve on June 26 for a bill customer understood to be an additional $500 before he was stopped.
On June 27 customer contacted Robert Vessa Plumbing and Heating. Robert Vessa fixed the problem, replacing the on/off switch to the boiler which cost $102. Robert Vessa indicated that t-stat fix was probably unnecessary although it was possible the system needed a new expansion tank.
To summarize, Coolheat technician installed t-stat and pressure tank on June 23 which did not fix problem.
On June 26, Coolheat technician attempted to install ignitor and gas valve for an additional $500 which was not paid and which would not have solved problem.
The On/off switch installed by Robert Vessa for $102 solved the problem.
Customer has copies of 2 receipts from CoolHead and one from Robert Vessa.
Although the cause of the problem was misdiagnosed, there are two new parts on the boiler due to this misdiagnosis. So in lieu of asking for the entire amount, which would be justified, since the June 23 service did not fix the problem which was ultimately resolved by a much less expensive fix, a refund of the labor and travel fee would seem fair, which is $199.44.
Business' Initial Response
Paul Broomhall was the technition preforming the repairs to the aged boiler system. Cool Heat was contacted by customer to preform service call for no hot water. Two necessary parts were replaced and approved by customer and paid for one week prior. Repairs were not related to the boiler. One week later the system had failed again and Paul Broomhall did troubleshoot system. This case the boiler had failed to fire and direct voltage was run to gas valve to verify no operation. Customer approved repairs (new valve, ignitor). Paul Broomhall returned at 8:00 pm with parts and had them installed. Customer then called the boyfriend at 10:00PM and he questioned my and my companiies integrity. I removed parts installed and recived no monies for time spent or parts. I had customer sign that boiler was not safe for operation. I belive that the proper actions were taken and again no monies were recived eventhough customer had approved the parts to be installed. Cool Heat re-installed old parts and left customers home as requested.
Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Had Mr. Broomhall been allowed to continue the work on June 26, 2012, he would have ultimately installed 4 parts for over $1000 and would not have fixed the problem which was ultimately fixed by a different part and contractor for just $102. The boiler has been in service now for over 2 months since that $102 repair.
Mr. Broomhall ultimately left the boiler in a very messy state as evidenced by his note on June 26 that ''BOILER IS NOT SAFE AT THIS TIME TO RETURN TO SERVICE''. In addition, Robert Vessa questioned the state the boiler was left in when he made his service call. It was for this reason and also due to Mr. Broomhall's demeanor that I did not ask Mr. Broomhall to remove the parts installed on June 23. I also did not want to wait for Mr. Broomhall to return with the original parts or have another encounter with him due to his agitated demeanor.
Mr. Broomhall consistently states that the client approved the repairs. However, clients are relying on the advice and judgment of the person diagnosing the problem as they generally do not have expertise in this area. The parts Mr. Broomhall was in the process of replacing on June 26, 2012, the gas valve and ignition, are still in the system indicating Mr. Broomhall's diagnosis was incorrect. Because the June 26, 2012, diagnosis was incorrect, and the boiler failed just 3 days after a service call by Mr. Broomhall on June 23, 2012, there is strong empirical evidence to indicate that the June 23, 2012, diagnosis by Mr. Broomhall was incorrect as well.
Business' Final Response
During the June 26 service call I asked ****** if she would like the expansion tank and aqua stat removed and her original check returned to her. She said no, that she needed the parts since these stopped the leaking of the boiler that had been occuring for an extended amount of time as she had noted during our conversation. I do appreciate the other contractor's assessment of the equipment however he was not at the job site prior to these parts being replaced therefore cannot make a true assessment of their condition. I did walk ****** through the problems I found and she did approve the work performed. Unless the items installed are not performing as designed, I stand behind the work done as noted on the invoice.