Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. 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.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/13/2022

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  UnresolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Mary who manages my condo discovered on 9/27/2022 I was without electricity. I was the only condo affected. She made numerous calls but was unable to get any answers. I was at work but started making call when I was off work. *********** ****** told me to call my electric provider, ******** ****** to see if there were any issues, which there none. They contacted *********** to let them know they did not issue a disconnect.
  
  I took 9/28/2022 off from work to get to the bottom of this.
  
  I called *********** and talked to a representative who looked at my account. They disconnected my service on 9/21/2022 due to observing tampering to my outside electrical box.
  
  On August 2, 2022 Southwinds Electrical, LLC replaced my outside meter box. They issued a temporary disconnect before doing the work. The ***** ******** ********** ******* was involved in this project. My contact person was Lisa G****** I was invoiced $1,290.00 which I paid in full that day.
  
  I also talked to ***** ******** ***** ******** ********* **** ** ******* ***** on 9/30/2022. He emailed on 10/3/2022 that Southwinds Electrical ask for a final inspection on 8/3/2022. It should of been scheduled as a service connection or temporary service connection. The **** ** ******* Texas was not made aware by Southwinds Electrical that a release was needed. Once Southwinds Electrical contacted the **** ** ******* Texas on 9/28/2022 and requested the release to ***********, the release was done that day along with providing a permit to do the work from 8/2/2022.
  
  On 10/3/2022 I took another day off work to resolve this issue. I sent an email to Southwinds asking to be reimbursed for expenses due to the disconnect from 9/19-9/28, 2022. This included loss of food, having the refrigerator cleaned and moisture control product to reduce mold. I ask for $274.55 which did not include days I missed from work. Now I wish to include my loss of work and asking for $574.55.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/20/2022

  We purchased an electrical permit from the **** ** ******* on 8/1 to replace the outside disconnect for Ms. ******** The temporary disconnect was scheduled on 8/1 with *********** ****** for service disconnection on 8/2.  On 8/2, we replaced the outside disconnect and passed the City inspection on 8/3.

  
  On 9/27, we received a call from Ms. ******* and she stated she had no power at her condo. We immediately reached out to *********** and they said they disconnected power because they did not receive the permit. They stated on 9/21, that they detected possible tampering, but after further inspection determined there was no tampering; however, they had not received the permit. We called and spoke with James Stewart at the **** ** *******. He said that sometimes *********** gets rid of the permits, so he then resent the permit. We followed up and confirmed with *********** to ensure the permit was received and power was restored to Ms. *******’s condo shortly after. 
  

  Ms. ******* emailed images of the food that was lost, as well as a receipt from **** ***** *** * ******* moisture absorbers that cost $24.55 total. She requested $274.55 and stated the “cost includes food loss, having someone go and clean out refrigerator and product used to collect moisture due to outage.” Please see attached images.
  

  In light of this situation, we offered to take responsibility for our part. We offered to immediately mail a check for partial payment towards the loss. Ms. ******* declined, demanded full payment and threatened legal action. We have never had this situation occur before. It was a very rare and unfortunate situation and we sincerely apologized to Ms. ******** Given the circumstances, we were not solely responsible for the power being shut off. We offered what we believed would compensate her for her loss for any part we may have had in this situation, but she declined our offer. 
  

  Our offer for partial payment still stands and we hope we can come to an agreement with Ms. ******** 
  

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/21/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 18210263, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  
  
  
  
  [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  I paid $1,290.00 to this company to do a job which was not done correctly. This company did go through proper communications with the **** ** ******* which resulted in a discconet of electricity to my condo from 9/19-9/28,2022.

  I should not be responsible for the $574.55 that a I am asking. The original amount I ask for was $274.55 which they would not pay in full so I have added lost pay from work. 

  If this not resolved I will take this to a ***** ****** ***** *** *** ****** ***** know this company does not stand by their work.
  
   

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:08/31/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This company ******** **** *** **** ******** ******** to come up with excuses for why he can not complete a job. I have a simple ceiling fan that went out and the fan is 15 ft high which is what i told the the contractor Daniel when i talked to them about time scheduling. I had a long conversation about a ladder and if it will reach, what kind of ladder it was, extension that sort of thing. Knowing this he came out anyway with his little screw driver, with no ladder and proceed to say they can't work on it because the **** ******** service does not let them work on fans conveniently over 15 feet which is no where in the contract. I later learned that it was Daniel who came up a with that ** claim and nothing to do with the **** ******** service, so he lied. He just made it up. He then called the **** ******** service that they can't work on it due to so called "ACCESS". Then proceed to tell them that it may be a remote control issues or receiver issue, but because they can't reach it they can't troubleshoot it. So due to there ** talk the Warranty service declined the replacement stating ACCESS not hight like this guy says. He knowingly got paid to do nothing. If you see this guy Daniel coming frim southwinds electric coming just know he is not work with you and he is using the warranty service to get over on you. Doing some research on this guy apparently I'm not the only one he's done this to. so he's been scamming people for quite some time using the **** ******** ******* ** *** **********

  Business Response

  Date: 09/07/2022

  - 8/29/22 at 11:53 am: we received a work order from a **** ******** company for Mr. ****
  - 8/29/22 at 12:11 pm: the appointment was scheduled for 8/29/22 between 1-3 pm 
  - 8/29/22 at 2:45 pm: the technician was en route to the customer’s property
  - 8/29/22 at 5:14 pm: the technician assessed the ceiling fan and the report was submitted to the **** ********

  
  When scheduling the appointment, Mr. **** stated the work order was a second opinion for the living room ceiling fan. He stated the previous company sent by the **** ******** diagnosed it as a burnt up motor, but the **** ******** wanted a second opinion. We asked Mr. **** if the ceiling fan was accessible by a 12 foot step ladder and he confirmed the fan was on a vaulted ceiling, but would be accessible with the ladder. 
  

  When the technician arrived, he found the ceiling fan was mounted on a 17+ foot ceiling, which was not accessible by the 12 foot ladder. When the technician turned on the fan, the light turned on and the motor would do a half turn and try to start, but wouldn’t move past a half turn. The switch provided power to the fan, so the failure was narrowed down to the remote receiver or the motor.
  

  The technician reported to the **** ******** his diagnosis and the claim was denied due to access. Due to the fan being mounted on the vaulted ceiling, the technician was unable to reach the fan or the canopy of the fan to fully diagnose whether the motor had a short or if the remote receiver had failed. In order to reach the canopy of the fan to troubleshoot or replace the fan, scaffolding would need to be erected. This is considered an access issue. The **** ******** contract does not allow for access. Access is the responsibility of the homeowner; therefore, the claim was denied.
  

  The technician promptly reached out to Mr. **** after he submitted the report to the **** ******** to inform him of the denial. We are not aware what the original contractor’s diagnosis was or why this work order was assigned as a second opinion. In our experience, most second opinions work orders are created at the request of the customer. We suggested he contact the original contractor as well as the **** ******** to see if they could proceed with the original diagnosis. We understand Mr. ****’ frustration and are truly sorry we were unable to assist with his claim.