ComplaintsforMr Electric of Vancouver

• Initial Complaint

  02/15/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Original Service Date: Nov 16, 2022 NOTE: Three attachments; photo showing receptacle back of house will not rotate properly for correct viewing. Following 11.16.22 service: Multiple e-mails to Manager, *************************, with multiple concerns; also disputed technician's claim that the **** cover in courtyard was out of code and would not do simple re-wire (change power control to switch inside house) without replacing the cover. Concerns about diagnosis and city permit charges were negotiated but no resolve on the **** cover. Over the years, Manager apologizes for mistakes including serious technical errors & each time asks for a "free pass." Last e-mail to Manager November 28, 2023, reporting that another electric company has confirmed the **** cover back of house [identical to the one Mr. ******************** removed] is NOT out of code; asked for refund & declared they are out of passes. No reply. This matter equates to fraud. Please see ****** review link: ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

  

  Business response

  02/28/2024

  ************** has been a customer of ours twice, once in May of 2018 and then in November of 2022. She had us out on 4 other occasions to provide her with free estimates, but did not choose to proceed with the work.
  We had provided a proposal for the work that was done in November, prior to doing it for her and she agreed to the price before we started.
  We had several phone calls and emails with ************** regarding this incident, and had agreed to refund $650 of the original invoice, which was done on 11/21/22.
  We disagree with the other electricians opinion regarding the outlet cover. Weather-proof outlet covers are required by the Electrical Code under Article 406.9(B)1. The cover that is in the photos that the customer has provided shows a "in-use" cover that is designed for horizontal use only but has been installed in a vertical position and so that is why we recommended that it was changed out and the customer agreed to the work prior to us starting the work. In addition, the **** receptacle in the photo is not a Weather Rated Device and because we worked on it  we had to install one that is.
  We had done a significant amount of work that was unrelated to the ** covers and feel that having refunded the $650 was more than generous. The fact that the customer is disputing $2,487.00 for a job where they us paid $1,837.00 for the work is absolutely unreasonable.
  It is surprising that this issue is being brought up again after more than a year past when the work was completed.

  We are more than happy to discuss any issues that the customer has and we will be more than happy to warranty any work that we have done, however, we will not be refunding any additional money on for the work that we did a year and a half ago.

  Customer response

  02/29/2024

   
  Complaint: 21298815
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  The $450 for diagnosis on non-working ceiling fan should not have been charged in the first place since this fixture was mislabeled when Mr. ******************** installed new breaker box few years prior. They also charged $277 for the city permit which I later discovered cost $117.60 and could have paid directly myself. It would be good business practice to let customers know they have the option to pay city permits directly to save money and let them decide for themselves. 
  
  As stated in my ****** review, a simple FIVE minute re-wire to an existing switch could easily have been offered as a courtesy service based on my years of patronage to the company and -- if for no other reason -- the nearly two-thousand dollars I spent that day after negotiating the overcharges. I'm an elderly consumer living on a VERY LOW fixed income. Discounts & corrections to overcharges merely bring down your premium prices to what may be considered a fair price, not a savings. And they challenge consumers to always be on guard for their own protection & best interest. Searching for reliable & fair contractors is a grueling task for the average consumer. Accepting your premium prices is an ultimatum, not a preference.
  
  Regardless of the timeline, I'm still requesting a refund of $470 for service to the courtyard **** unless it can be unequivocally proven that the cover was out of code. Mr. ******************** declares the other electrical company's statement about the **** cover is an "opinion." It seems reasonable to believe if something is in fact out of code it is not based on opinion. Please provide copy of Electrical Code under Article 406.9(B)1 mentioned in your first response to BBB. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************
  
  

  Customer response

  03/12/2024

  Mr. ******************** has not provided me with a copy of the ********************ial Code they referenced in their BBB response, that I in turn asked for in my response to them. This is what I found on ****** and it says nothing about vertical or horizontal covers, nor anything else that conclusively proves the original GFCI cover was out of code: 
  
  "Section 406.9(B)(1) states the following: Receptacles of 15A and 20A, 125V and 250V installed in a wet location must have a waterproof enclosure, whether or not the attachment plug cap is inserted. An outlet box hood installed for this purpose must be listed and identified as extra-duty. Feb 15, 2023" 
  
  Please see screenshot below: 
   
  
  ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
  
  Also, please be aware that my on-line navigation skills and overall comprehension for completing forms of any kind is limited. Complaint Type and disputed amount are both inaccurate. I did not see a box that allows for "Other" so I must have chosen "Guarantee Or Warranty Issues." And I put the full amount originally paid as the disputed amount when apparently I should have entered only the $470 refund amount I was asking for.  
  
  Please also take into consideration that having to write a response that cannot be edited once submitted is highly stressful for me, especially with a 30 minute timeline. Even without a time-line, it still takes me an inordinate amount of time to formulate my thoughts and try to word them clearly. 
  
  It would be most helpful if BBB's on-line response forum could incorporate a system that allows submission time to be extended by providing a pop-up option for the responder to select "more time needed." My on-line credit card account provides this option and it's most helpful. 
  
  If BBB cannot add this feature, it would still be helpful to know that I have the option to close the page and come back to it later, and the specified time frame allowed for doing so. If there's a stated option for this, I must have missed it and was afraid if I did not submit my response upon initially opening the page that I would miss my only opportunity. Please let me know. 
  
  Your response to this follow-up e-mail is very much appreciated, 
  *********************;

  

  Business response

  03/26/2024

  My **** reference is from the 2023 National Electric **** ****** otherwise known as ******************************* (NFPA) Article 70.
  Chapter 4,Article ***** (B)(1) Receptacles of 15A and 20A, 125V and 250V installed in a wet location shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof whether or not the attachment plug cap is inserted. An outlet box hood installed for this purpose must be listed and identified as extra-duty. Other listed products, enclosures,or assemblies providing weatherproof protection that do not utilize an outlet box hood need not be identified extra duty. Hinged covers of outlet box hoods shall be able to open at least 90 degrees, or fully open if the cover is not designed to open 90 degrees from the closed to open position, after installation.
  Chapter 4,Article ***** (B)(2) Other Receptacles. All other receptacles installed in wet location shall comply with *****(B)(2)(a) or (B)(2)(b).
  A receptacle installed in a wet location where the product intended to be plugged into it is not attended while in use shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof with the attachment plug or cap inserted or removed.
  A receptacle installed in a wet location where the product intended to be plugged into it will be attended while in use (e.g., portable tools) shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof when the attachment plug is removed.
  
  I have attached a picture of the **** Book Cover as well as pictures of the articles that I have referenced.
  
  Here is a website address to a ******* video that might offer some additional explanation as to what we are talking about.
  *******************************************
  
  I have attached a picture of the cover that we replaced with an arrow showing where the problem is. If you look, you will see that the openings to the cover are on the side rather than the bottom of the cover, this will allow water to enter the cover making it useless in keeping it weatherproof as required in the aforementioned code reference.

  Customer response

  03/27/2024

   
  Complaint: 21298815
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I've read the codes Mr. ******************** quoted in their March 27, 2024 response to BBB and viewed the ******* video, also referenced in their response: 
  *******************************************.
  
  1) Code states that covers must open at least 90 degrees. The **** cover Mr. ******************** replaced opened as required and was identical to the one currently located at the back of my home. If there is any verbiage stating the covers must be installed vertically, please provide evidence. Otherwise, photos in attachment titled, "Code Reference 1" merely illustrate vertical covers reasonably understood to represent a particular style. 
  
  2) ******* video states there are options for installing these outdoor **** covers VERTICALLY or HORIZONTALLY and shows two different depths. Three attachments attached to this response illustrate these facts. The depth of **** cover Mr. ******************** replaced reasonably matched the one identified in the ******* video as a "low profile" option. Again, identical to the one currently located at the back of my home. Please also refer to original attachments I provided when filing my complaint. 
  
  Evidence provided thus far proves the **** cover Mr. ******************** replaced was NOT out of code. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************
  
  

  

  Business response

  04/04/2024

  I really don't know what else to say to this customer. The intent of the code is to have a cover installed in such a manner that will prevent water from getting to the device behind it. With the opening on the side of the cover that we replaced, water can easily get into the cover.

  I have already refunded this customer $650 in an attempt to resolve this issue, I do not feel the need to take this any further. 

• Initial Complaint

  05/16/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Asked to add **** watt of capacity to basement and only **** were added. Instead, they added 4 outlets on an electric circuit that was already full. Those useless outlets cost over **** dollars now they want another **** to fix their design mistake.

  Customer response

  06/16/2023

  Case number 20068261.
  
  The business satisfactorily resolved the issue and I would give them a positive recommendation. 
  
  -*****
  

  
  

*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. ↩