ComplaintsforChristianson Air Conditioning & Plumbing

• Initial Complaint

  11/13/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We have purchased to replace our old AC unit with an up sale to upgrade to Air purifier system initially didn't have nor needed after getting the best sale pitch how good and worthy it is but brought nothing but problems with it. In the 3 years of owning it had 3 bulb replacement, a core replacement and power cord replacement done where each time despite having service agreements we had to pay until the second core replacement needed on month of October 2023 not knowing how long this time it was off/broken since last service was done in January 2023.Service man came for our annual maintenance that was paid on January 2023 and found multiple issues where ended up paying $72, leaving the air duct half open to test the faulty purifier under the warranty since they just replaced it back in May 2021 and simple bulb replacement wasnt the issue, now remind you that unit has 5 years warranty and i hold a maintenance service which should cover certain parts with parts and labor .the last drop was asking $190 to install the broken purifier that was taken more than a month ago for testing purposes, and when i questioned the cost of installing it back i ve been told i could get my old unit back right away if i choose not to pay. So im like what? I ve been skimmed each tine for one thing or another. After spending all that money ,having a service plan that should cover all I'm doing is pay on each time they come to do maintenance for a unit that is not even 5 years old yet. I request all my service charges to credit back to me for the rudeness and greedy business model you guys running.

  Business response

  11/14/2023

  Christianson believes this customer does not understand the terms upon which they purchased a replacement air conditioning system in September of 2019, nor does the customer understand what a maintenance contract includes, nor does the customer understand the repairs that have been performed.    When the customer purchased the air ********************** equipment in 2019, the equipment came with two separate warranties.   The first warranty was provided by Christianson which was a 12 month material and workmanship warranty.   This warranty includes "bumper to bumper" coverage of everything Christianson installed in the customer's home.   In addition to the Christianson 12 month warranty, the manufacturers of the equipment provide their own 60 month warranty which includes parts coverage only for the products they manufacture.  As a part of the sale, Christianson included a 1-year preventative maintenance contract at no charge to the customer.   The maintenance contract includes a two visits per year to perform preventive maintenance on HVAC systems.    In the replacement of the customer's a/c equipment, the customer also purchased what we call an MX4 UV light which is installed in the evaporator coil cabinet.    During a preventative maintenance visit in April of 2021, we discovered that the MX4 UV light was not working.   Initially we assumed that the bulb life had expired but upon replacement of the bulb, the light would still not work.   At that time, Christianson replaced the entire MX4 UV light free of charge to the customer, even though the 12 month warranty provided by Christianson had expired at that point.   

  Christianson continued to perform the perform the preventative maintenance on the customer's equipment making visits in November of 2021 and January of 2023.   No deficiencies were discovered in any of the equipment during these visits.   Christianson performed another preventative maintenance on October 4, of 2023 and found 2 items that needed attention.   The first item was the dual-run capacitor tested out as outside the manufacturers specifications.    Because the capacitor was still under the a/c manufacturer's parts warranty, Christianson was able to obtain a replacement capacitor and only charged the customer $72 for labor to replace the capacitor (remember the manufacturer does not cover labor they only cover parts) and likewise the original Christianson 12 month warranty had expired 3 years prior to this visit.   Replacement of defective manufacturer parts are likewise not covered by the preventative maintenance contract.    The 2nd deficiency was that the MX4 was not working.   Initially the technician assumed the problem was a burned out bulb, however it was later discovered that the unit would still not operate with a replacement bulb.   The technician removed the entire MX4 and brought it back to our office for futher testing to make sure that the core of the unit was the culprit.   It tested out as another defective unit.   Since the MX4 was still covered under the manufacturer's warranty, Christianson was able to obtain a replacement MX4 from the manufacturer.   When Christianson called to schedule the replacement work, it informed customer that the customer would have to pay the labor charges and only the labor charges to replace the unit.    Customer refused to pay for the labor charges so Christianson returned on 11/13/23 and reinstalled the customer's old but defective MX4.  Customer states that ********************** left a hole in the ductwork where the unit was originally installed during the time that the unit was at Christianson's office for testing but that is not accurate.   The technician had plugged the hole upon removing the MX4 and prior to leaving the customer's house.   

  The customer is requesting a refund and we are questioning what the customer wants refunded.   In 4 years, the customer has only paid for 1 repair ($72 for labor only for a manufactured warrantied dual capacitor) which is totally unrelated to the MX4 the customer is complaining about.  In fact the MX4 and the a/c equipment don't even have the same manufacturer. There have been no scams whatsoever.  Christianson has completely honored all of the terms and warranties provided to the customer in the customer's original purchase.   ********************** believes it has taken exceptional care of the customer and that the customer is just misunderstanding what a preventative maintenance contract includes versus a warranty.       

  Customer response

  11/14/2023

  Complaint: 20864904
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  The scam is selling a product that requires frequent replacement for the bulb and frequent part failures that is not mentioned at the time of sale pitch that will happen. Am I delusional to believe 3 bulb replacement, 2 core replacement and a power cord  replacement within 3 years not normal (unit install date is 11/2019)?

  Scan number two is the website description which is attached and highlighted for your ease of ******** indicate tune *** include Electrical components, which including conductors and capacitors.so if the part is covered under the warranty ,and the labor is part of my tune up visit which we scheduled for you to come and check the over all health of the system, your guy determining it needed to replace it, why there is $72 charge for labor? What is the point me paying $120 for the service fee? Its not me who doesnt understand how your service package works its you having misleading information on your website advertising the service plan.and I did show that to your technician and he didnt have a word to say. 

  What I didnt understand also taking my part away for a testing that took a month,leaving only insulation material which to me its left open to bugs and mice, determining it is  faulty ,and calling  me to tell you ll replace but charge me ,again where I have a service plan. I could have done all that if you initially said hey there is charge of $190 if we put it back after replacement approved. I could have have the part replaced myself which Im doing now in a week and installing myself within 2 min , 4 screws. 

  So your bussiness model is not honest. you need to clearly communicate what possible costs can occur before you do anything. 

  As far as coming back to refund I request the any labor charges I paid that was attached on my documents list. 

  Regards,
  
  ****** And ***************************

  Business response

  11/14/2023

  I am sorry to say that this customer is confused about his previous repairs and is ignorant of how to diagnose and repair the equipment.   The problem was not the bulbs but the core.   initially we thought the bulbs were the problem and replaced them each time to make a diagnosis but when that did not fix the issue, we replaced the core.   It would be inaccurate to say that the bulbs were replaced 3 times.   We tried twice to replace the bulbs which includes this latest episode but both times it was the core.   The power cord was replaced as a standard procedure because the new MX4 comes with a new power cord.   The original cord had no problem, the bulbs were not the problem.  It was the core that ultimately failed both times and the manufacturer is replacing them in accordance with their warranty policy.    The first time the customer did not have to pay anything.   This time, the only thing the customer needed to pay was for the labor to replace which is not covered by the manufacturer. 

  As to the maintenance agreement, actually read the language on the website and you will see that the maintenance agreement states that we inspect and/or service among many other things -  the electrical components.   That is not misleading.   How did we know that the capacitor was weak?    We inspected it and tested it with a multi-meter. We inspect them to catch them before they fail.  The maintenance agreement language does not state that we replace failing components as an included duty of the agreement.  You are not buying an insurance policy for your a/c equipment,  It is a preventative maintenance agreement.  Again this component was covered under a manufacturer's warranty.  The manufacturer covered the part under their express warranty however, they don't cover labor.     

  As to warning the customer ahead of time about which parts may fail or need to be replaced - I don't even know how to respond to this.   When you buy a lamp- at some point you will have to replace the bulbs.   When you buy an automobile, you will have to replace the battery at some point.   Those components are expected to wear out - they don't last for the life of the item.  When you purchase a UV light - like a lamp expect the bulb to wear out.  When you purchase an air conditioner, expect the capacitor to wear out because that what it is - a battery.    These are common wear and tear items.   I understand the customer may be ignorant to these facts but it is common sense to most people.

  We are glad to know the customer has found a solution to his problem.   If there is anything else we can help him with, please let us know.   

• Initial Complaint

  09/23/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On 9/13, I called them out to provide an estimate on work I needed done. They charged me $89 and said theyd have the estimate done 9/15. Over the past week, I have called them 5 times trying to request the estimate; and on the 5th time I tried requesting a refund. Each time I was told the person on the phone couldnt help and theyd have to call me back with someone who could. At this point, Im assuming theyre ************* to try to steal my money and fly off into the sunset.

  Business response

  09/29/2023

  Christianson did in fact make a service call to the customer's residence.   Customer has clogged and/or broken kitchen sink drain.   Christianson did charge the customer a diagnosis fee of $89 to determine what course of action that customer needed to take in order to repair the problem.   In the course of that diagnosis, Christianson located the break/ and or stoppage with it's locating equipment and marked the location so that customer could contact a tunneling contractor and obtain an estimate and a plan to tunnel under customer's foundation.   In order for Christianson to provide an estimate for the plumbing repair, Christianson needed the tunneling plan from the tunneling contractor.  *** service technician informed the customer to call us back once the customer had obtained the bid and plan from the tunneling contractor.   *** customer did get the bid and plan from the tunneling contractor and then hired another plumbing contractor to perform the work without contacting Christianson back so that it could provide the final estimate to the customer.   After receiving this complaint, Christianson contacted customer and apparently the customer did not understand that she was so supposed to call us back once she received the estimate and tunneling plan.   Christianson believes it provided a service that was of value for the $89.00 it charged to customer to make a diagnosis, locate the ******************** in the area of needed repairs, and give an expert opinion to customer of how to proceed with the repair (which included a referral to a tunneling contractor).   Because $89 is not worth arguing over, Christianson has agreed to refund the $89 it charged to customer.   To any future customers who read this, please contact the company and ask for the owner if you believe you are not getting your "money's worth" for the services we have provided.   Often times there is a misunderstanding and we eagerly desire to make things right with you.              

• Initial Complaint

  08/16/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  During mold remediation of our **** closet, we contacted Christianson AC in December 2022 to inspect our air handler. *****************, project manager, came to inspect the air handler and **** closet. He informed us we would need to purchase a new air handler. He sent a quote on 21 December 2022 for the cost of a new air handler plus installation ($4833) that was valid until 4 May 2023. ***** indicated via email, "The closet will need to be sheetrocked and the metal duct will need to be wrapped with insulation before we can install the air handler." He was referring to the fact that significant insulation had been removed due to mold growth by our remediation company. After our **** closet was remediated and sheetrocked in late May 2023, we immediately scheduled Christianson to install the air handler. We paid in full on 26 May for the Christianson techs to install the air handler. They did not inform us that the **** ductwork was not properly insulated nor were we advised against installing the air handler. Crucially, the project manager did not return to confirm that the conditions of the **** closet were amenable to success prior to installation. A few weeks later, we discovered water damage on the ceiling of a bedroom adjacent to the **** closet and that the ductwork in the **** closet was sweating. On 17 July 2023, a Christianson tech came and provided a quote for insulating the ductwork (which requires removing the air handler). We paid a $99 diagnostic fee for this assessment. A month of repeated attempts to contact *****************, his supervisor, or customer service have been ignored. Our initial desire was to negotiate the $1200 estimate as Christianson failed to ensure our **** was ready for the air handler. Now we seek to be returned to our original condition at no cost and $99 returned. That is, we want Christianson to remove the air handler, so we can hire another company to insulate the ductwork, which Christianson was clearly capable of doing in the first place.

  Business response

  08/25/2023

  The business (**********************) did in fact contract with the consumer at consumer's request to replace the consumer's **** air handler and only the air handler.  Due to the presence of mold, the consumer was in the midst of a mold-remediation project which affected the **** equipment, **** equipment closet and other areas of the residence.  ********************** was not contracted to manage a mold remediation project, rather the consumer requested that ********************** remove the mold from consumer's **** air handler.  Because ********************** does not remediate mold from **** equipment, ********************** advised the consumer to just replace the air handler with a brand new one.      ********************** is very glad the consumer was diligent in keeping good records and was able to include in this complaint the e-mail chain of communication between the consumer and **********************'s designer/ salesman ******************   When one reads that e-mail chain, it is clear that ************** informed the consumer, among other things, that the consumer's existing sheet metal duct work needed to be insulated prior to the consumer scheduling ********************** to install the new air handler.   Thus, the responsibility of the installation of the insulation to consumer's existing duct work was clearly not included in **********************'s scope of work.   

  Some month's later, the consumer did contact ************** and informed him that the job was ready for ********************** to install the air handler, at which point ************** sent an installation crew to perform the work.   It appears that the consumer is now trying to claim that ************** was a project manager for this remediation project and that ************** should have been supervising work that was outside of the scope of what ********************** was contracted to do.   ********************** however fully understood that the consumer was the project manager and that ************** had educated the consumer on what the consumer needed to take care of (as the project manager) prior to scheduling the installation.   ********************** does not hold installation crews responsible for determining the conditions of other's prior work and in that respect, the crew was not prepared or competent in making the determination that the work the consumer was supposed to have performed had not been performed or would not be performed in the future.   **********************'s crew simply performed its job as it was directed to do.  

  ********************** understands that the consumer is upset that because the work that the consumer was supposed to have performed prior to scheduling ********************** was not performed is now going to cost the consumer additional funds to remedy.   However, ********************** denies it had any responsibility for the oversight of this project, that it was contracted in any way to be a project manager, or that the failure of consumer to prepare the project prior to scheduling ********************** to perform its work should somehow be a financial responsibility of **********************.   

  ********************** did provide an estimate for the consumer to remedy the consumer's problem.   However, the consumer made a counter-offer that was not acceptable to the business.    The business would welcome the opportunity to continue to negotiate with the consumer to work towards an offer that is acceptable to both parties.  Consumer can contact Trent ********************** at ************ if he and/or she would like to have further discussion.  

• Initial Complaint

  07/18/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This has been going on since 2020 in a brand new home. The **** unit was installed incorrectly for one. Duct work was horrible I had mold and mildew growing in a bedroom closet had to lose space to get it corrected. Then they forgot to replace the insulation. The outside unit has had parts replaced and the company told me it would definitely break again that it was the unit that was the problem and there were already issues with many other in the neighborhood from the beginning. The furnace inside has frozen multiple times had another part replaced at least twice. Another leak in my garage from it. This was going on in the winter and summer months at the worst possible time especially when I had a terminally ill child in the house at the time that could not regulate his own temperature. The company will not continue to cover this under the warranty even though it has been going on from the beginning. So I am going thru another company and they still refuse to make this right and replace the entire unit since it is quit literally every part ,piece and hose. Or at the very least pay for the other company to completely replace/fully fix the unit. It has been a nightmare from the start. I truly hope that all the reviews I have posted will turn some of their business away since they cannot back their work up. Please help me get this resolved. Make them accountable.

  Business response

  07/18/2023

  Unfortunately the complainant has had a number of issues arise in her home as it relates to her **** system.   Some of those issues were caused by failures of the **** equipment which carries a warranty by the manufacturer of the equipment and not necessarily this company.   In every one of the circumstances involving an equipment failure, the company has worked on the complainant's behalf to obtain the warranty provided by the manufacturer.   While we understand it is frustrating for the complainant, it is the process that she signed up for when she purchased her home.   

  In regard to complainant's specific allegation that the company did not properly install the **** system, the company emphatically denies such allegation.   The complainant has had other problems that involved her **** ducting but those problems were caused by the lack of insulation (actually no insulation) in the duct chases in the construction of her home.  The lack of insulation causes the external temperature of the ducts to achieve temperatures that are below dewpoint temperatures and the ducts then produce condensation on the outside of them due to the hot humid air in the chase.  *********** has notified her builder of this problem.   However, the complainant is ignorant of construction means and methods and somehow she thinks that the insulation missing in her duct chases were an omission of this company's scopes of work.  Her builder needs to have the insulation contractor remedy the problem.   

  *********** truly sympathizes with the complainant but the demand to replace the entire **** system does not solve her problem even if she hires someone else to replace the duct system.   *********** will continue to honor any warranty obligations that the company agreed to in its contract with the builder of the home which would include working within the equipment manufacturer's warranty policies should there be any future equipment failures.  However, the complainant needs to be aware that any modifications performed by other contractors to the original work performed by the company would adversely affect those warranty obligations. 

  Obviously the complainant has the right to voice her opinion of the company.   We only wish she understood what she was talking about when she disparages our name for things that were not within our scopes of work in the construction of her home.    

• Initial Complaint

  06/27/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Our second floor a/c unit stopped working and we had Christianson come out to give us an estimate. The unit is under a 10 year warranty through Christianson (selected by our builder). Instead of providing me an estimate the tech tried to charge me $359 which included a $99 trip charge none of which was mentioned to me when I set up the appointment. The tech refused to believe me, called me a liar, then left after some back and forth. The next business day I contacted Christianson for a quote and was told that they were not going to provide one even though I have a 10 year warranty through them. I feel this is a contractual failure on their part which could cost me thousands of dollars unnecessarily and all the while my a/c is still not fixed and its averaging over 100 degrees outside.

  Business response

  07/05/2023

  On June 16, 2023 the complainant called and set up an appointment with a customer service representative (***) of the business in regard to his air conditioning system not cooling.   The complainant was told by the *** that there would be a diagnostic service call fee of $99 for a service technician to come to complainant's home to diagnose the problem.    Complainant agreed to the offer and so the business dispatched a technician to complainant's home that very day.   The technician diagnosed the problem as low refrigerant charge and offered the complainant the additional service of performing a refrigerant leak search to determine where the refrigerant leak was occurring.   The technician quoted the complainant a cost of $159 for the leak search.   Complainant agreed to the offer.    Technician discovered that the evaporator coils for both of complainant's a/c systems were leaking refrigerant and needed to be replaced and that the business would be in touch with a price to replace both evaporator coils in the near future.    It was at this point that the complainant refused to pay for the services performed claiming that his a/c systems were under warranty.    The business has no idea why the complainant thinks he has a 10-year warranty on his **** systems from the business.    The business was the original **** contractor when the complainant's home was built approximately 9 years ago (completed in 2014) for the builder that constructed the home.   However, the business and the builder have no agreements whereby the business was to provide a 10-year warranty on the **** systems.  If the builder represented to the complainant that there was a 10-year warranty on the **** systems in his home then the complainant should take that issue and/or representation up with the builder and not the business.    The business has never made such a representation to the complainant.  

  There is an old wise saying that "you get what you pay for".   Since the complainant refused to pay for the service the business rendered, the business refuses to provide any future service to this complainant.  When you expect to pay for nothing, that's exactly what you get.   

  Customer response

  07/05/2023

  Complaint: ****1567
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  In response to the claim by the business that I was told there would be a $99 fee upon making the reservation--I will say unequivocally that I was not. In fact, I spoke with the same representative (a woman) on several occasions after making the initial reservation, in the event that there was a cancellation and my appointment could be moved up, and never once did she mention a $99 fee. I would highly suggest the business review recordings of these conversations, if they exist, for training purposes, to avoid such a misunderstanding in the future, as Im certain Im not the only customer who has been surprised by these charges, I just happen to be one who is raising it to this level. Further, it is not me generatimg this notion of a warranty, but rather the technician who came to my house. While he was unable to provide me an estimate in writing, he did pull up my records electronically while he was standing in my foyer, and stated that my evaporator coil had a 10 year parts warranty which ended in April ****--he also provided an estimate of $1,500 to replace that coil which was for labor. 

  Regards,
  
  ***********************

• Initial Complaint

  07/05/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Christianson plumbing installed defective NIBCO piping in my house, resulting in over 12 leaks in the past few months and over 35k in damages. Our out of pocket costs are estimated to be in the *****k range.They deny fault and are trying to pass the buck. They offer to repair the defective piping at full cost to the homeowner with no remedy.Many houses affected in our neighborhood. They need to be held liable and accountable.

  Business response

  07/07/2022

  The business understands the frustration this homeowner has experienced.   The business did install ***** pipe in tens of thousands of homes including the homeowner's house more than 11 years ago.  Of those homes, a little less than 10% of them have experienced one or more leaks as the pipe has aged.  ***** pipe is manufactured by one of the world's largest plumbing material manufacturers and was widely used throughout *****************.   It met all of the requirements and had all of the certifications required by every plumbing code authority in *****************.   ***** has entered into multiple national and local class action settlement agreements that include all homes in which it's pipe was installed.   The business has been and continues to be in serial litigation with ***** in regard to the business' losses related to our use of the pipe in so many homes.   This is why the business understand the homeowner's frustration.   However, unless this homeowner opted out as a class member to the settlement agreement, the homeowner needs to understand that because ***** provided a express 25-year warranty on their piping system, and because the homeowner is a class member of that settlement agreement, the business cannot make a claim on the homeowner's behalf.    The business did not manufacture the failing pipe and it does not provide the warranty on the product beyond the express 2-year warranty provided to the homeowner's builder.   This is not "denying fault and passing the buck", this is directing the homeowner to the proper venue for the homeowner to seek restitution for losses associated with previous leaks and so that homeowner will have a remedy should they decide there is a need to replace the potable water system in their home.  The business can repair the homeowner's leaks for the customary service fees to do so, however, only the homeowner is permitted to file that claim with the settlement administrator. 

  At the time of installation, the business had no way of knowing that the pipe would fail after 10 to 12 years of service.   The business is an installer and does not certify the pipe to meet any particular standards.   There are multiple testing agencies in the industry who perform the duty of testing and certifying plumbing products and when they put their seal on the pipe, they are certifying that the pipe meets the minimum standards required for residential potable water systems.   Those seals also mean the pipe is approved by the plumbing code authority.   As an installer of pipe, the business can only verify the pipe it installs has the proper certifications and approvals that the plumbing codes require.  While we empathize with this homeowner and thousands of others who are walking in their shoes, the homeowner's legal remedy is to file a claim with the ***** Class Action Settlement Fund.  If there needs to be someone who is held liable and accountable, please direct your attention the manufacturer (who still responsible to the customer for their express warranty) and the institutions that certified the quality of the pipe to meet the code standards.                     

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩