Here's an update on this situation following their response to the BBB. I apologize for the length, but I don't know any other way but to report what they said and my response:
1/24/04 - Response from BBB:
The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received a response from the business in the above referenced complaint case. Please review their response to your complaint and advise us of your position in the matter.
You can access the details of the complaint and view the business' reply by clicking http://www.thebbb.org/complaintconsu...97&auth=ndhx9o
. Please click on the' More' link in Complaint Status section to view this response.
On January 21, 2005, the business stated the following:
Mobile Tech: I am in receipt of the BBB Complaint Activity Report, case # 22028697, originated on December 22, 2004 by Malia Lane. To date, I have never received anything from her regarding this matter so I am learning of this for the first time today from you.
My response: I sent the same complaint I filed with the BBB on the same day through your web page, which asks for comments to be directed via your form online. I never received the courtesy of a response. If you cannot receive comments or complaints that way, you shouldn't ask for them to be sent in that way. Also, the BBB forwarded my complaint to you on December 22 and you didn't bother to respond to them for almost a month, until their deadline of January 21. I wouldn't exactly call that anxious to set the record straight.
Mobile Tech: "I pulled all 3 of her signed invoices, and the facts are: 10-24-04 - Malia Lane called our office. She complained her toilet was leaking and her ice maker needed an adjustment. An appointment was set for 10-28-04 after 4pm. 10-28-04 - Our technician arrived as scheduled. He tightened a fitting on her toilet and the leak stopped. He adjusted her ice maker. Note: Ice maker adjustments are done without removing the unit. She signed our Service Invoice, which clearly states that she is satisfied with the repair performed. She was charged $100.00, and she paid by check."
My response: So far correct, except he did remove the icemaker to make the adjustment. He even commented on the fact that he didn't always have to do so, but did in this case because of the design and where the adjustment dial was located.
Mobile Tech: "11-30-04 - Malia Lane called our office. She complained that her refrigerator was leaking in the back. An appointment was set for 12-13-04 between 9am and 10:30am."
My response: It did take me 2 weeks to discover the icemaker was still leaking, not a month. When I called the office, Maria had Dana call me at work. He said he was going out of town for a certification class in the next few days, but he would stop by my RV and see what he could see by checking out the outside panel. When he called back, he said he had discovered a leak and replaced a washer, which fixed it. When I got home, I opened the outside panel and could clearly see water steadily dripping from the hose. That leak was definitely not there when he first showed me inside that panel on his first visit. I still believe that whatever adjustment he made then was done incorrectly, causing that leak. I tried disconnecting and reconnecting the hose, reseating the washer, etc., with no success, so I placed a cup underneath to catch the water and started going outside several times a day to empty it. I defrosted the freezer again to see if the leak down the side of the icemaker reappeared and it did.
When I spoke to Maria again, she said Dana was out of town at the class and would have him call me on his break. It was then that he said it was probably a cracked solenoid valve, recommended that I go buy one and he would "talk me through"Ł replacing it. That was why and when he gave me his cell phone number.
I just did not feel competent to do this, so decided to wait until he could return and the soonest appointment I could get on Dec. 13.
Mobile Tech: 12-13-04 - Our technician arrived as scheduled. He replaced a washer in a connection behind her refrigerator, which stopped the leak. She then asked him to adjust her ice maker again saying that she wanted śsmaller ice.' The technician noticed that Malia had removed her water regulator valve, and stated that by doing this she changed her water pressure which affected her ice maker. He recommended that she put her water regulator back on her water system. The technician did adjust her ice maker as requested and showed Malia how to adjust it herself for the future should she reinstall her water regulator valve. She signed our Service Invoice, which clearly states that she is satisfied with the repair performed. She was charged $102.00, and she paid by check.
My response: I never told Dana I wanted "smaller ice."Ł How ridiculous - I have no preference as to the size of my ice! He did tell me the adjustment he would make would result in smaller ice without "bridges"Ł between them because it wouldn't be overflowing anymore. It is correct that I did not have my pressure regulator in place when Dana first visited. I told him I had removed it at this park because the water pressure was so low and my shower water was barely a trickle. He recommended that I replace it and I did following his first visit. He never said anything about the regulator affecting the icemaker then or on subsequent visits, but it most certainly was in place on this second visit. He adjusted the icemaker the second time by again removing it. I remember him looking in a manual to determine how far to turn it, and I watched him do it, but I never would have felt comfortable removing the icemaker by myself and never considered doing so.
I did sign the invoice and paid another $102.00 because I asked him to look at the electrical connection between the motor home and the tow car. That only took about 10 minutes, and it was still unclear whether or not either adjustment would work. It would take until the car was hooked up and the icemaker to cycle before we would know, so I could not have said at that time if I was "satisfied with the repair performed."Ł
Mobile Tech: 12-14-04 - Malia Lane called our office. She complained that her ice maker stopped making ice all together. An appointment was set for 12-15-04 after 3pm. Our technician arrived as scheduled. He was unable to confirm her complaint. He manually operated the ice maker (done without removing unit), and they both watched while normal size ice dropped out. She signed our Service Invoice, which states that she was satisfied with the repair performed. As a courtesy, we did not charge Malia for this Service Invoice as we take pride in our work.
My response: How "courteous"Ł not to charge me for another return visit for the original problem still not fixed! Following his last adjustment, in fact it had gotten worse. At least I had always had ice before (and I didn't care what size it was.) Now I had none, small or large, and still had none when he returned the next day, so I don't know how you can say "he was unable to confirm her complaint."Ł The original problem was the large icicles down the side of the icemaker and I wasn't sure what kind of problem that was creating. He did make another adjustment to the icemaker, and again, it was necessary to remove the icemaker to do so. I was told it would take at least 24 hours for it to "cycle"Ł before I would have ice again. I guess signing the invoice stating that he had been there automatically absolves them of actually having repaired anything.
Mobile Tech: 12-16-04 - Malia Lane called our technician directly bypassing the office. She complained that her ice maker was leaking. The technician instructed her to call the office and schedule an appointment since he is not in control of his schedule.
My response: When I did have ice the next day, but had an even larger icicle down the side of the ice bin, I did call Dana directly. When I had previously voiced my dissatisfaction to Maria, her snide tone and response of "Well, we've made progress, haven't we?"Ł did not make me think she was too interested in their customer's satisfaction. Just because I had ice again, which had not even been a problem until they "adjusted"Ł it didn't mean they had fixed my original problem, which I was still trying to resolve.
Mobile Tech: 12-17-04 - Malia Lane called our technician directly again at 1:28pm. She demanded that he adjust the ice maker again, and that he must be there before 5pm because she had an appointment to go to. Our technician again explained that she needed to call the office and schedule an appointment. Malia told him that she wasn't going to call the office and wanted to deal directly with him. Our technician reluctantly told her that it would all depend on how long it took him to finish his prescheduled route, which was on the opposite end of town from her on a Friday afternoon. Our technician called her back at 4pm stating that it would be physically impossible for him to be there by 5pm. Since he couldn't make it, he tried to again walk Malia through how to adjust her own ice maker, but she demanded that she shouldn't have to do it.
My response: I guess this is where we get into "he said ľ she said."Ł I told Dana of Maria's rudeness and he never suggested I call the office again to set an appointment. He said he would work me in and when I asked if he could be there before 5:00 because I did have an appointment, he said he would be there. At 5:00 when he wasn't there, I called him again and he said he was near Troutdale working on a guy's satellite connection. He did try to get me to remove the icemaker and "tilt"Ł it away from the direction of the leak, saying he had probably just not leveled it the last time he replaced it following the last adjustment. Again, I did not feel comfortable doing this, especially since I had paid him twice to correct this problem, and asked when he could get to me again. He said he could be there by 7:00. I reset my appointment, but when he still wasn't there, I called again but he did not pick up the phone. I left a message saying I would be gone for a couple of hours, but he could call me on my cell phone. I told him I wasn't leaving town the next day until noon, so he could come by the next morning and I would be there. I never received another call or visit.
Mobile Tech: As of that call, we have not received or heard anything from Malia Lane again. I can provide copies of these 3 original invoices clearly proving all these facts and signed by Malia Lane personally with her expressed written authorization to release such information. Be advised that we do charge a processing fee for duplicate copies. However, she did receive a copy of each invoice as also clearly indicated by her signature so she can provide them as well. I can also provide phone records clearly showing the call times on 12-16 and 12-17 directly to our technician and not the office as instructed. It is very unfortunate that this situation has happened. We have never had a complaint prior to this because we are professionals in every way. I was never śrude' to her at any time. Malia was never given our technician's cell phone number directly. She must have overheard him having a conversation in which he repeated his phone number. Our office does all the scheduling of appointments and she clearly did not want to follow the normal process.
My response: I have copies of the 10/28 and the 12/13 invoices, which are the only ones I was provided with, but I have no problem with you releasing any information I signed or your phone records. As for how I got Dana's cell phone number, your explanation of my getting it in some dishonest way is ridiculous. Maybe he wasn't supposed to give it out and that's his current spin on the story. He gave it to me directly when he wanted me to go buy the solenoid valve and he could talk me through it from his cell phone. He never once asked me not to call him on it or told me to call the office again for another appointment.
Mobile Tech: It is note worthy that the only time she complained about a śleaking ice maker' is on 10-28-04. On the 12-13 and 12-15-04 Service Invoices, she did not complain of a śleaking ice maker.' If she had stayed longer, I am sure that we could have conveniently worked her into our schedule in an attempt to confirm this new complaint. We would be happy to adjust her ice maker again should she want to come back into our servicing area and make an appointment as stated on our Service Invoice. Even if we had heard directly from her, I do not believe that she is due any refund since all the work performed was done to her satisfaction each time as indicated by her signing our Service Invoice clearly stating such. I can be reached at 503.358.3508 weekdays between 9am and 4pm. Thank you for the opportunity to present the facts in this unfortunate and isolated situation.
Office Manager, MRVTS
My response: Are you trying to say I didn't keep complaining of the same problem regarding my icemaker? I have copies of only two invoices that I signed and was provided with, the original one on 10/28 and the one on 12/13. The remarks written on the invoice for the 12/13 visit was "replaced washer on connection, adjusted ice maker to make smaller ice."Ł As I've stated before, I believe the outside washer leak was caused by Dana when he removed and replaced it on his second visit when I was not there. As for the smaller ice, that was his interpretation of what was needed in order for the trays not to overflow, which is why he thought it was leaking over the side.
I find it interesting that you keep referring back to the Service Invoices I signed. When I read the fine print, it states there is a 90 day "in-house"Ł warranty on labor only. It also states "I must present the problem in the original state and untampered with for any labor warranty issues to be covered."Ł So if I had followed the tech's advice and removed the icemaker myself to tilt it, that would have absolved you of any further responsibility? Kind of a "Catch 22"Ł situation, don't you think?
As for having you try again to adjust my icemaker, I respectfully decline, not only because I have no current plans for returning to Portland, but I believe you had enough chances to demonstrate not only your expertise but your attitude toward customer service, neither of which I am impressed with.
As stated previously, I have posted this information on the RV forums of which I am a member, Escapees, Open Roads (Good Sam), and IRV2, as well as on RV Service Review's website. I promised therein to post any response I get from you and will do so. A member of one of the forums recommended I report to the Oregon attorney general's office, and I may follow that course following the BBB's intervention. It may turn out that the only thing I can do is warn others about your business ethics so that others are not taken advantage of in the same way. Yes, it is certainly an unfortunate situation, and everyone will interpret it based on their own experience and point of view. I learned when I informed the RV park who recommended you that Maria is Dana's wife, and there have been other complaints about your service, so mine is not an isolated incident.
I still believe it is fair for you to refund the last charge of $102 as the problem is still not resolved and I have simply turned off the icemaker until I can afford to get someone else to fix it. Obviously I cannot force you to do so, and since you're not a member of BBB, I suppose they can't do much else, either. The BBB asked me to provide them with a "middle ground"Ł offer to help them resolve this matter. In that effort, I would accept a refund of $65.00, the one hour charge for the second visit. This would give you the mobile fee of $35.00 even though the problem is still not resolved, as well as your charge of $2.00 for the washer part.
But if the only thing I can do is save one other RVer from the same experience, I'll consider myself paid in full.