When the initial complaint was brought to our attention by Angie’s List the client was listed at a particular address in Traverse City, Michigan. During our due diligence, we reviewed the address and name within our database and found that we do not have a client with this address and did not complete service of any kind within the last ten years to anyone with this name or address. In checking Google Maps, we found that this address does not exist. We advised Angie’s List of this and requested that the false claim be removed from the site. As of December 7, 2012 the records have now been changed to the client’s real name and address. We have not been informed as to member's reason for falsifying his information in the first place. We do acknowledge that we were at member's residence; however, we have a different perspective as to what transpired. While we appreciate all input, an F rating is not a true depiction of the professionalism we have tried to extend to member. Since December 4, 2012 we have tried numerous times to contact member in an attempt to resolve this challenge, in fact offering to return his check, however, he has refused to respond. Member initially called us out for service on December 3 due to his furnace not working properly. Our technician arrived within less than an hour of our dispatcher speaking to member. The initial complaint was that the furnace was making a loud noise, would start up but then shut down again. The system appeared to be delaying on ignition, and one of our first recommendations was to do maintenance service on the 1989 Heil furnace, since our records showed this had not been done since 2009 and the equipment was dirty, which can cause operation issues. With member's approval, our technician performed a complete maintenance service on the unit including pulling the burners out and cleaning them and the pilot orifice, cleaning the flame sensor, visually inspecting the heat exchanger, testing the igniter, checking the blower assembly, checking the gas pressure, and testing all safety devices. All of this was done from a precarious position on a ladder, as the furnace is hanging from the ceiling in the garage. Our technician put the furnace back together and cycled the system, which then operated as designed and would not fail. Member refused to allow our technician inside the house to check operation of the equipment at the thermostat, which is a normal part of maintenance service and would have allowed us to see what sequence, if any, may have been failing. As an organization, we do not just change out parts that “could be the solution,” we must see the equipment in a failed position to accurately determine the cause of the problem and work through the solution from there. Initially, when calling for heat there appeared to be a delay in the system, resulting in an abundance of gas which would cause the flames to roll out on startup. After cleaning the equipment, this situation was no longer occurring, so it appeared to have been corrected to proper operation without replacing parts. The equipment was operating in proper condition when our technician left member's home. Our technician did note that there were several issues with member's installation that were not up to county installation codes, including the type of gas shutoff installed and that there is no electrical shutoff to the furnace. If these items were to be brought to the attention of a county inspector, member would have to have them corrected. After leaving and moving on to his next service call, our technician realized that he had mistakenly left his company rate book at member's home. He called member and arranged for a time for him to return and retrieve the book at 7:50am the following morning (December 4). Upon his punctual arrival on the morning of December 4 to pick up his book as arranged, member told our technician that the furnace had quit again and demanded that he repair the furnace immediately. Our technician advised member to call the office to speak to the dispatcher and schedule a return, as our technician was not yet “on the clock” and did not know his schedule for the day or whether he had other obligations. This is standard procedure, as all service calls are scheduled through dispatch. It was also likely that we would need to procure parts for the furnace before it could be repaired. It was at this point that member became verbally abusive and threatening to our technician, and refused to return the book. member demanded that our technician leave his property and our technician did so. Member called our office and spoke with the Executive Assistant, who advised that we could certainly schedule a service call but that we need our company property returned. Member stated “You will get your book back when you fix my unit.” Since that conversation, we have attempted on five separate occasions to contact member and have left equal amount of voicemails requesting a phone call and that our book to be returned. On December 4, we had decided to return member's check to him, retrieve our book, and no longer do business with him. We cannot reasonably be expected to do business with someone who is not willing to work with us to resolve an outstanding problem and verbally assaults our technician for doing his job, not to mention steals company property. Scope of work completed included the $95 diagnostic fee as quoted before the initial dispatch, and $125 for the maintenance service, which member approved and which was completed to the best of our technician’s ability from his position on a ladder and member's refusal to allow him to check the thermostat. As of this writing, we have been advised by local law enforcement that when we have a company representative in the area of member's home, we should call the police station and they will escort us to retrieve our company property that member has refused to return. Once we have moved to this legal action, our offer of returning member’s check will no longer apply. I am requesting that you please review both sides of this claim, and dismiss this claim from our records. As you have seen from our documentation, this is a situation of a client making unreasonable demands and falsifying information, as well as stealing company property. We have made every attempt to resolve this matter outside of this medium, but member has refused to respond.