Response from Cloud Heating & Air Conditioning
The customer paid in the fall for a Planned Maintenance Agreement, which included a service on the furnace, Humidifier and A/C, the trip charge (since it was outside of city limits) and all the benefits that go along with the agreement, for $219.00, plus an additional repair for $125. There were never any charges to this customer for a $150 amount. The spring checkup was performed March 31st, 2011. When this customer called Saturday, April 9th, the on-call technician offered to come out free of charge. Free diagnostics, even evenings and weekends, are a benefit we extend to our planned maintenance customers. The customer was verbally abusive and refused to let the tech come out because it would be an inconvenience to her weekend. We did not have a chance to call the customer back Monday morning, because she called us before we could even respond to all of our messages. The customer continued to be verbally abusive and demanded some kind of monetary compensation for her troubles even though she refused our offer for free weekend repairs. The owner finally convinced her to let us come back for a free repair call. The tech found that it was a little low on refrigerant and charged the system up at no charge to the customer. We explained that when the first tech was out in March, it was cool and rainy and he may have accidentally missed the issue. Again, the technician apologized for the inconvenience. The customer continued professing her dissatisfaction when we refused to offer her money. We have, at times, refunded customers when we determined harm to them or fault on our part. But instance, when we were available to deal with the issue when the reported it, but she refused, did not fall into the category where we felt a refund was warranted. While mistakes are not common, when we make a mistake we make a reasonable attempt to make it right. Unfortunately, this customer was unreasonable and would not allow us to rectify the situation in a timely manner. And now, the issue of timeliness reoccurs when she posts an online complaint more than 3 months past the time of the incident.