Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  24/01/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  We purchased several appliances from Canadian Appliance Source and at the time purchased a 4 year extended warranty. We are still within the warranty period. The latch on our dishwasher door broke and the warranty provider stated that "any issues pertaining to breakage regardless of the cause of the damage are excluded from coverage." What in the world is an extended warranty for? We find this reprehensible. If there is no form of resolution possible through the BBB, we will file in small claims court our of principal. Can you please advise on your process.

  

  Business response

  01/02/2025

  Dear **** *******,

  Thank you for reaching out to us to share your concerns about your Thor dishwasher. As per our records we can see that a Resolution Case Manager reached out to you on January 30th of 2025 to discuss the matter.

  Any functionality related issues with an appliance will be covered by the extended warranty company. For more information please see the Terms & Condition in the link below:

  https:/******************

  We have been informed that ** ******* Plan has offered to reimburse the cost of the extended warranty purchased as a gesture of goodwill. For further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  02/02/2025

  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me, however only because it is not worth pursuing further. The warranty company offered $99 as a warranty refund and refused to actually fix the problem.  Canadian Appliance Source offered to see how much the part is worth for whatever reason, and in the meantime we were without a dishwasher for days and decided to just get it fixed. A dishwasher that was covered by their warranty. 
  

  We find this whole situation disappointing and the sale of the warranty disingenuous to be polite.. 

  Sincerely,
  
  **** *******

• Initial Complaint

  15/01/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Delivery Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I contracted for the purchase, delivery and installation of a dishwasher. This complaint is in respect of the installation services, which were contracted at $159+HST. On the day of the scheduled installation service, I received an email refunding me the prepaid fee for the installation service. This was totally unexpected as I was hoping to have the dishwasher installed for me and my family that day. In fact, my wife stayed home specifically to be there for the installation. One of the main reasons why I bought the dishwasher from CAS in the first place was the convenience and cost of the installation service. After several calls with CAS, it became clear that management unilaterally terminated the services. I was unable to speak with management and was simply referred to another third party installer to pay them a fee (which was higher than the fee that I was to pay to CAS). This is terrible business practice, terrible customer service, a breach of contract and a huge waste of precious time.

  

  Business response

  22/01/2025

  Dear ***** *****,

  Thank you for reaching out to us to share your concerns about your dishwasher installation. As per our records we can see that your dishwasher was delivered on January 14th of 2025.
  

  As per the Installation company, ***** ***********, they reached out to you to inform you about possible additional charges which might incur for the installation of the ***** dishwasher. The installation service was canceled and refunded after ***** *********** received a confirmation from the customer that they would like to cancel the service.

  Please note that the service paid neither includes junction boxes nor plumbing lines. The charge is for existing hook ups only.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

• Initial Complaint

  14/01/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Originally bought washer and dryer appliances from Canadian Appliance Source (CAS) with delivery and connection services included. On Friday Jan 3 2025, delivery man connected and turned valve wrong way and broke the valve off. Writer called external plumbing services on Jan 3 after attempts were made to communicate to follow up with the next steps on repair. Unfortunately they did not get back to writer until Monday Jan 6, 2025. They sent the initial email after I filled out their ****** **** Form. They offered $250 up front. Writer did not accept the offer then as I was waiting for ****** Plumbing to forward the invoice. Invoice received on Friday Jan 10 and was promptly forwarded to ***** ***** ********** Delivery (****). **** unwilling to work with writer to fully compensate for the damages and repair. They are negotiating and offering arbitrary numbers for financial compensation. Second offer was $99.50 + taxes, $150, and latest $180. Attempts were made to contact CAS and they said the delivery team is responsible for repair claims. Contact information for CAS is the same telephone number for ****- when they reported they are unrelated. The "claims manager" I have been emailing with is not acknowledging our attempts to move forward by accepting the initial $250. They say that offer is off the table and blame it on me that I should have accepted it when it was offered. I was not given any notice that I had to accept that offer or it would be taken away. When I have tried to escalate the situation with CAS, they tell me I have to deal directly with **** and this claims manager. When I asked to have her supervisor contact me she will not give me other contacts. I would appreciate the BBB’s assistance in mediating this matter to ensure that I am fairly compensated for the damage caused during the installation process. I believe a fair resolution should involve full reimbursement for the repair costs as outlined in the ****** Plumbing invoice.

  Customer response

  14/01/2025

  Canadian Appliance Source (CAS) is the appliance store and ***** ***** ********* ******** (****) is the ‘contracted’ delivery team they hired for the job to deliver and connect the washer and dryer. They say they are independent, however the claims manager of **** forwarded me her phone number and it also connects to the CAS main line. I believe they are related though I do not have details on the relationship. 
  

  * **** ******** *** ******** ******** 

  

  Business response

  15/01/2025

  Dear ******* ***,

  Thank you for sharing your feedback with us. Your feedback is important for us. We are sincerely sorry to learn about the property damage.

  Regarding the Claim, we can see that the Claims Manager reached out to you on January 14th of 2025 to reiterate the offer of $250.00 CAD which was initially made on January 03rd. We kindly ask you to reach out to us to proceed with the offer.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  15/01/2025

  Dear Better Business Bureau serving Central Ontario: 
  
  I am writing to formally reject the response provided regarding Complaint #********, for the following reasons:
  
  1. Unprofessional Handling of the Claim by Claims Manager S.F. 

  From the outset, SF's management of my claim has been difficult and unprofessional. Initially, I received an offer of $250 for compensation, which I did not accept because I was awaiting the invoice from ****** Plumbing. Once I forwarded the invoice on January 10, I was informed that the compensation offer had been arbitrarily reduced to $99.50 plus tax, then later increased to $150 and $180.

  SF has also questioned the validity of the invoice, specifically the replacement of two valves. However, this recommendation was made by a licensed plumber, ****** Plumbing, and I am attaching a statement from them to further explain their reasoning. Despite this, SF continued to question the cost of repairs, creating unnecessary delays and confusion. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this issue promptly and respectfully, but each attempt has been met with resistance. When I offered to accept the original $250 compensation amount, SF informed me that this offer was no longer available. Furthermore, I requested to speak with her supervisor for mediation, but SF was unmotivated to facilitate this. It is clear to me that there was little interest in resolving the issue fairly or in a timely manner.
  
  2. Excessive Time and Difficulty in Communication

  The amount of time I have spent trying to communicate with SF and CAS has been excessive. What should have been a straightforward process has dragged on for several days, causing unnecessary delays. The damage to my property was caused by ****, and as such, I believe repairs should be fully compensated. However, instead of facilitating a fair and prompt resolution, CAS engaged in lengthy negotiations and created an adversarial environment that felt more like a bullying tactic than a professional claim resolution process.
  
  3. Liability for Damages

  As I have previously stated, the damage to my property was caused by CAS contracting unqualified movers whose negligence directly resulted in the damage. As the hiring party, CAS is fully responsible for their actions, and it is entirely appropriate for CAS to bear the cost of the necessary repairs.

  4. Professional Repairs

  A licensed plumber determined that replacing both valves was the most cost-effective and minimally invasive solution, due to part incompatibility and the proximity of the valves. This decision is further supported by a quote from another plumber, who estimated the cost of repairs to be nearly $1,000.
  
  5. Good Faith Negotiations

  The rescinding of the original $250 offer and the subsequent low offers of $99.50, $150, and $180 do not reflect the actual cost of repairs and were clearly not made in good faith. The offers presented fail to adequately compensate me for the damage caused by CAS and appear to be a deliberate attempt to minimize the settlement, rather than an honest reflection of the costs involved.
  
  Conclusion
  I request that this claim be revisited with the full compensation of $344.02, which accurately reflects the actual cost of repairs. I expect that future communication regarding this matter will be conducted with professionalism and in a timely manner. I also request the involvement of Better Business Bureau as a neutral third-party to mediate this matter and ensure a fair resolution.

  Thank you for your attention to this matter.
  

  Sincerely,

  ******* ***

  

  Business response

  20/01/2025

  We appreciate your response to the review. We have consulted with the claims team at **** who has honored their original $250.00 offer. We will discuss with them internally regarding their negotiations with our customers moving forward. 

  As such, as an act of good faith, CAS is willing to provide credit of 94.02 to make up the difference of the quote. We have instructed **** to proceed with a release in the amount of $344.02 to resolve this matter.

  Customer response

  27/01/2025

  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. However please leave the complaint open until funds have been received. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ***

• Initial Complaint

  13/01/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Sales and Advertising Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  The sales person did not provide adequate information on the models available, I specifically asked for the details on the differences between models. He said 1 thing was different (it has a glass lid vs a solid lid). This is not something I'd be concerned about/a decision maker. The machine does not have a detergent dispenser - that is a deal breaker, and I would not have purchased. He then offered free delivery and installation. He did NOT advise that installation would negate the ability to return/exchange the product. It has not been used but the delivery people take the packaging away. ***** did not provide the information as a sales rep that was pertinent, and I have requested an exchange (and of course will pay the difference), which has been 'denied' because it was installed and the packaging removed. **** **** ***** ** *****. **** ** **** * ****** ********, and if the sales rep is not advising clients, then those who are unable to read, or not English speaking as a first language will be absolutely taken advantage of.

  

  Business response

  15/01/2025

  Dear ***** *****,

  Thank you for reaching out to us to share your concerns. We would like to apologize for your experience. At the time of purchase customers are required to accept our Terms & Conditions. The specifications were also shared.
  

  Please note that our team will always unbox larger appliances at the time of delivery, as part of our white glove service for easy maneuvering. The ** washer/dryer were installed as part of the services included on your order.
  

  Regarding the exchange of your ** washer, we can see that a Resolution Case Manager has been in contact with you. An exchange has been approved with a reduced restocking charge of 25%. (CAS usually charges 35% for items which are no longer factory-sealed) A discount of $79.00 was also offered on the new unit. Your exchange is scheduled for January 16th of 2025.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  15/01/2025

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: * ******** **** **** ** ********* ********* ******** * ****** **** ***** **** ********* ** *** ********* **** ****** ***** ** ** *** ******* ***** ********. If the sales rep is obligated to specifically verbally review the policy with the purchaser of high fees and brutal process to exchange a machine as long as you accept what is being offered for no charge, then it's fair.

  Further, the sales rep was not well informed either about the products he sells, or about doing laundry.

  I've accepted the offer with restocking fee AND a delivery fee, just to make this go away and do laundry.  But anyone should be forewarned about the business practice here. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *****

• Initial Complaint

  08/01/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  We bought a gas range from the store as our oven had broken. We paid an extra $179.00 to have them install the oven. The range was delivered by their company on January 3, 2025 and they took our old range away as per our agreement. On January 4, 2025, the gas fitter, provided by Canadian Applianced Source, arrived at our house and after about 45 minutes of trying to install the range told us that the stove was defective and could not be hooked up. We contacted the salesperson who advised us to file a return/exchange form to start the exchange process. We have not received satisfactory communication from this company. They will only speak to us over email and when we ask questions or reply to their requests we do not hear back from them. We have tried calling their customer care line but they never answer. They offer a call back option but never return our call. At this time they are asking for an installation report that states the product is defective so they can investigate but we did not receive a report from them. We have asked for either an exchange in product or a full refund so we can purchase a range from somewhere else. At this time we have no way to cook a meal for my 4 member family. We are unsure of our next step as there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to help us.

  

  Business response

  14/01/2025

  Dear ***** ******,

  Thank you for reaching out to us to share your concerns about your ********* Range. We are sincerely sorry to learn that there is an issue with the GAS Stove.
  

  CAS recommends ***** *********** as a third party installation company to its customers. CAS facilitates the process by charging the standard installation fee upfront after which a technician reaches out to the customer to book an appointment.

  Regarding your GAS range, we can see that a Resolution Case Manager reached out to you on January 14th of 2025 to further discuss your concerns. A voicemail was left along with a follow up email. Our After Sales Team have asked for more information in order to better address your concerns.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  14/01/2025

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  1) We did pay the $179 fee to have CAS hire an installer through ***** **********. It was this installer that told us the product was defective. We felt this would be the better choice so that if there were any problems CAS would respond promptly. This did not happen.

  2) Your Resolution Case Manager did telephone today but as I am a teacher I am not able to answer the telephone during instructional time (the phone call was at 12:38pm during instructional time). I did receive the follow-up email which I responded to in less than 1 minute. The response informed them that the questions they were asking had previously been asked and responded to seven days previously from the same department. * ******** * **** ** *** ******** ** **** *****. The inquires were soley regarding an electric range in which I replied to both emails that this is a GAS appliance and therefore the questions were not relevant. * ** ********* * **** ** ***** ****** ** **** *********

  I have further email and text responses of us (the consumer) asking for help with this matter since January 4th. I still do not have a stove to cook with and therefore have been having to make other costly arrangements to feed my family of 4. 

  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******

  

  Business response

  18/01/2025

  Dear ***** ******,

  Thank you for sharing your response. We can see that your Resolution Case Manager has been in contact with you.

  A replacement of your ********* Range has been authorized and added to your order. We are currently waiting for stock from *********. Once your order is fulfilled, you will be contacted to book an exchange.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS

  Customer response

  22/01/2025

  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******

• Initial Complaint

  21/12/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased a ********* microwave/ convection oven on December 4, 2024 from Canadian Appliance Source in Halifax, order # ******** for a total cost of $659.73 I purchased this particular model (*********) as I am currently living in our cottage and needed the convection/bake option. When I tried to bake, first cookies and then a 9” cake, this function didn’t work. There wasn’t enough heat to cook the batter, even after double and then tripling the normal baking time. I e-mailed the sales person I had bought it from immediately so there would be a record of the issue, as I am 3.5 hours from Halifax and knew it would be some time before I would be able to return the item. I got an email saying he was out of the store the next 2 days and given another CAS contact. Their response was for me to contact *********, which I did. *********’s response was for me to return the defective appliance to where I had purchased it since it was still under the 30 day warranty. I drove to Halifax to the Canadian Appliance Source with the defective appliance and the sales person there would not even entertain the thought of a return, an exchange or anything. He gave me a number to call 1-************. The person who returned my call was of no help whatsoever. She simply said”No returns on microwaves” and continued this line as I explained it was defective, not working properly. She advised me to seek a ********* service center. I have reached out to ********* again and the nearest service center is almost a 2 hour drive. I don’t understand how a company can sell a broken appliance and not be accountable. I am reaching out for help. I find it incredibly hard to believe that I have been taken in by this company. Thank you for any assistance you can give.

  

  Business response

  09/01/2025

  Dear *****,
  Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. We deeply regret the inconvenience you have experienced with your ********* microwave/convection oven and the challenges you’ve faced in resolving this matter.
  As per our policies, product warranty claims within the first year of purchase are upheld directly by the manufacturer. However, we understand the frustration this situation has caused and, as a gesture of goodwill, we have proactively launched a ticket with ********* to explore next steps and facilitate a resolution for you.
  We recognize the inconvenience of traveling to a service center and have communicated your concerns to *********. We will keep you updated as soon as we receive further information from them.
  In the meantime, should you require additional assistance or have further questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at 1-************. Your satisfaction is important to us, and we are committed to helping you resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
  Thank you for your understanding and patience.
  Sincerely,

  CAS

• Initial Complaint

  02/12/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  We have purchased a 27inch washer on Nov 24th and we picked it up form the warehouse ourselves and brought it home the same day. We purchsed this for our elderly parents that live in a condo unit. Upon bringing the washer at their home me and my brother realized that the washer was too big for their home and right away (withing 45 mins of pick up) called the sales person and adviced him that we need to return this and pick up a smaller washer 24inch. We submitted right away a return form on the website (within an hour) and was talk that the case is now open and we have to wait 48 hours for their response, in 48 hours we received an email in asking more pictures and provided the same, we had to wait another 48 hours for emails to be responded as there is no direct line for us to talk to someone. After that we were asked for more pictures...we asked if someone can call us to have a discussion and clarify the ask, no one responded. My brother after few days brought the washer to the store we purchased it and they did not accept but we were asked to open the entire washer package (we did not open the box originally, e only removed the straps and taped them back after we realized the size was wrong) and provide pictures of the washer from inside. Upon sending these pictures, we received after another 48 ours an email stating that we can odder a new washer but we will be charged a 35% restocking fee on the condition that the unit was remains uninstall/unused with all packaging, which we did. We only open the package because they asked us to do so. If no resolution, we will file a small court claim and **** charge back.

  

  Business response

  05/12/2024

  Dear ******* ******,

  Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback with us.We are sorry to hear that the washer initially ordered did not fit.

  Factory-sealed products can be returned for a full refund within 60 days of delivery or pickup. As the box had been opened, the return was subject to a restocking fee.

  We can see that a Resolution Case Manager reached out to you on December 02nd of 2024 to discuss your concerns. Assistance was offered to re-select a compact Midea washer. The restocking fee has been waived as a gesture of goodwill. We have also added a $149.25 discount for the new washer.

  The exchange was successfully completed on December 03rd of 2024.
  

  For any other assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  05/12/2024

  
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********* and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ******

• Initial Complaint

  26/11/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Subject: Complaint Regarding CAS's Refusal to Honor 60-Day Return Policy Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally file a complaint against Canadian Appliance Source (CAS) for refusing to honor their advertised 60-day return policy for a product I purchased online. I recently bought an ** Range from CAS, expecting the flexibility to return it within 60 days if unsatisfied. However, when I tried to return it, the store informed me that returns are only accepted if the factory-sealed box remains unopened. This is both unreasonable and misleading for the following reasons: 1. Packaging Removed by CAS Delivery Team: During delivery, the box was opened, and packaging removed by CAS’s delivery team prior to installation. This was part of their standard process, not my doing. 2. Inability to Test Without Unpacking: It is impossible to evaluate a product like a range, requiring installation and use, without unboxing it. This policy prevents customers from properly assessing products bought online. This practice misleads potential consumers to believe that they can return an item if it does not work for them and therefore CAS gains sales that they would not get should their de facto no-return policy was known to potential consumers. This practice is deceitful and does not align with the spirit of a 60-day return policy. At no point during the sales or delivery process was I informed that the box cannot be opened and the original packaging must be retained for a return. I kindly request your assistance in resolving this matter. My request is for CAS to honor their 60-day return policy and process the return, as opening the box in which product arrived and the lack of original packaging is a result of CAS's delivery process and not negligence on my part. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Sincerely, **** ********

  

  Business response

  03/12/2024

  Dear **** ******** ,

  Thank you for contacting us in regards to your ** range.

  Our records indicate that a Resolution Case Manager reached out and spoke with ******* on December 03rd of 2024. A follow up email was also sent.
  

  As per our Return Policy, CAS does not accept returns of open box products and any products missing parts or packaging.  In rare situations where CAS may at its sole discretion accept an open or out of box product CAS can charge a 35% restocking fee.

  For more information on our return policy, please see below ;  

  https://**********************************************************

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  08/12/2024

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I received a response call from Canadian Appliance Source. CAS keeps refusing to honor their 60-day return policy. I need further assistance from you, please, to resolve this issue.
  During the call I received from CAS, they again said that all sales are final, and no product can be returned if the product packaging was opened. It is in direct contradiction with their 60-day return policy. I once again explained that the product is not as I expected and reiterated my request for a return under their stated 60-day return policy. However, they continue to refuse my return against their posted policy.
  As I purchased the product online, there was no way for me to evaluate it without opening the box in which it was packaged and delivered. Refusal to accept the return because the box was opened makes their 60-day return policy false, as it effectively voids the return option for all online purchases. This deceptive practice is further compounded by the fact that effectively the product is being sold as "final sale," a critical fact that should have been explicitly stated on their website and during the sales process.
  This practice violates consumer rights to receive full and accurate information about the sale before it happens. It is against a proper business practice for the business to give a customer false information about their offers.  This business posts false information about their return policy as the actual no-returns practice is fundamentally different from the communicated on-line return policy.
  I request that CAS process a return on the product as per stated 60-day return policy
  Sincerely,
  
  **** ********

  

  Business response

  21/12/2024

  Hello ****,

  Thank you for sharing your response with us. We would like to inform you that the 60 Day return policy is applicable to appliances which are factory sealed only. A 35% restocking fee is applied on return of appliances which are no longer factory sealed.

  In your case, the ** range is currently being used and as per our return policy, we do not take back appliances that have been used.

  ''Policy
  Factory-sealed products can be returned at no penalty within 60 of receipt for full refund* CAS does not accept returns of open box products and any products missing parts or packaging.  In rare situations where CAS may at its sole discretion accept an open or out of box product CAS can charge a 35% restocking fee.
  

  No returns or exchanges on used or installed products.''
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  11/01/2025

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  Dear CAS representative ,
  Thank you for your response. Once again, I demand that you honour your stated 60-day return policy. I am shocked that any business considering itself reputable takes an unfair advantage of their customers by misleading them into making a purchase and misrepresenting the return policy that is one of the major considerations for a purchase. I experience enormous mental and emotional stress due to this situation.
  In your response to my complaint you stressed that your policy only allows for a return of unopened and unsealed products. This clause creates a catch-22 situation by requiring inspection of items at delivery but prohibiting returns of opened products and therefore making it impossible to properly inspect a product without opening. As a customer purchasing online, it is unreasonable to expect that the product could be evaluated without opening the box.
  This policy is unconscionable because it prevents me as a customer from reasonably exercising my right to inspect goods and it creates an unfair advantage for you, the seller.
  The Sale of Goods Act establishes a requirement for fair return eligibility conditions that allow customers to make informed decisions. Further, it establishes the principle that ambiguities in consumer agreements should be interpreted in favor of the consumer.
  For online purchases, there is no practical way for a customer to determine whether they like the appliance or if it meets their needs without opening the product. Your claim that your policy only covers unopened products unfairly penalizes online customers by effectively removing their right to examine the product upon delivery and cancels their ability to use your return policy.
  Given the concerns that your policy is unconscionable and violates the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, I demand that you honor the return of the product in accordance with a fair interpretation of your 60-day return policy.
  I look forward to your prompt response.

  Sincerely,
  **** ********

  

  Business response

  28/01/2025

  Dear **** ********,

  Thank you for reaching out to us and sharing your response. For clarifications, Factory-sealed products can be returned for a full refund within 60 days of delivery or pickup as indicated in our Return Policy. This does not include appliances that have been used.

  For appliances which are no longer in their boxes, CAS can charge a 35% restocking fee upon the approval of the Return request.
  

  CAS is unable to authorize an exchange or return of the ** range as we do not accept returns on appliances that have been used and installed. We apologize once again for any inconvenience.
  

  Best regards,

  CAS
  

• Initial Complaint

  18/11/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Dear Better Business Bureau, I am filing a formal complaint regarding Canadian Appliance Source due to their failure to honor a promised reimbursement for a damaged product delivery. In July, 2024, I purchased a range from Canadian Appliance Source. Upon delivery, the range was found to be damaged, and I refused the delivery, sending the item back immediately. The company assured me that I would be reimbursed $81.85 for the delivery fee. However, despite their repeated claims that the reimbursement has been processed, I can confirm that no payment has been received. I have made multiple attempts to resolve this matter directly with Canadian Appliance Source, but they have failed to provide evidence of reimbursement or to address the issue appropriately. Their failure to deliver on their promise of reimbursement is unacceptable and has caused significant frustration. I am requesting the Better Business Bureau to intervene and assist in resolving this matter. Specifically, I seek to have the promised $81.85 reimbursed to me immediately. Thank you for your attention to this complaint. I have ******** all relevant correspondence and documentation for your review. Please let me know if additional information is needed.

  

  Business response

  27/11/2024

  Hi, we see you paid $2,843.35 on July 9, 2024. A refund of $2761.50 was processed on July 15, 2024 and a secondary refund of $81.85 on August 29, 2024 after you escalated the matter to us. *** ******** *****. We encourage that you contact your financial institution as this has been completed on our end. *** ******** ************. 

  Customer response

  27/11/2024

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******** ********

• Initial Complaint

  16/11/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Delivery Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Transaction date :Oct/26/2024 Item:** washer and dryer stackable set Paid:2990.35 Issue:it delivered on29thoctober, technician didn't install the dryer .He said this is a new technology that I m not familiar , I can not install.I called the store next day to call for somebody , they said this is just a plug inmachince since no venting .I plugged in by myself then I realized dryer’s door is not closing , not locking.Again I called the store , they refer the manufacturer, they said they can not replace without ** technician authorization. I contact with ** , they send a technician on November 14and replaced the door , and technician said this is a lie to need an authorization by them.They provide only repair warranty , nothing about authorization. After technician left, I tried to use the dryer at first time , but was not working properly, throwing en error on screen about drain hose which is never installed. I did almost 10 different call between ** and CAS customer support, When I try to connect with sales manager in north store (Mr.*****)he was extremely **** and just hung up the phone , I m fighting since the first they , no response no apology no offer help, they refuse to replace or return

  

  Business response

  30/11/2024

  Dear Kubra Ozyasar,

  Thank you for reaching out to us to share your concerns.We are sincerely sorry to hear about the issue you are experiencing with the ** dryer. Due to the dryer being ventless, the delivery team was unable to assist with the installation.
  

  We can see that a Resolution Case Manager reached out to you on November 27th to further discuss your concerns.

  We have offered to reimburse you $54.95 + tax as a gesture of goodwill.
  

  Thank you kindly,

  CAS
  

  Customer response

  02/12/2024

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: it's not acceptable apologize

  for showing good indeed after a solution not by store by brand in 35 day. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *******

*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. ↩