Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  08/11/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Our home that we purchased 3 years ago and is approximately 6 years old has a Mitsubishi split/ heat and cooling system that we reported as not working. The techs came, said the unit needed coolant, charged $500 for the service and 30 minutes after leaving, the unit went down. Ive let my bank know to stop payment, called the company and was told to find another provider. They even said we needed to pay for a leak test.shouldnt that be a service rendered on the visit. It truly felt like a scam. I called them back this morning and they want to charge me for another visit and said it needs a test. This company is not working to resolve the matter. Do not hire South Nashville Heating and Cooling.

  

  Business response

  08/13/2023

  The client, *************************, was provided service on Thursday, 8/10/23. ************** determined the system to be low on refrigerant. The technician added refrigerant and offered to perform a leak search to locate the leak. 

  The client chose to DECLINE the leak search. There is no warranty on refrigerant, as when there is certainly a leak, it is impossible to know how bad the leak is and how quickly the refrigerant might leak out again. 

  Shortly after the service was completed, the system stopped working again. The client contacted their bank to stop payment for the original visit, as they stated in their complaint.

  When we contacted the client the next morning to schedule a follow-up visit, they informed us that they had stopped payment on the visit from the day before, and that they would NOT be paying for the follow-up visit. Normally, we would be willing to complete the follow-up visit to determine if there might be an additional issue. However, when the client informed us they had stopped payment for the first visit, and would be refusing to pay for a follow-up service, then YES - our service manager informed the client they would need to find a new HVAC company. 

  The client states in their complaint that a leak search should have been a service "rendered on the visit", referring to the original visit. We have documentation that the leak search WAS offered on the original visit, and that option was declinded, because the leak search was an additional charge for time and labor. 

  So, when our service dispatcher spoke with the client the next morning to let them know there would be an additional charge for another trip fee and the leak search that was offered the day before, on the original visit, this is a legitimate fee. If the client had approved the leak search on the original visit, ************** could have confirmed the location of the leak and proceeded with the necessary repair. 

  This is an unnecessary complaint that could have been avoided if the client had approved the original offer to perform a leak search, rather than assume that adding refrigerant would solve the problem. There is no way to know how bad a leak is or how long the refrigerant will last. And for the client to stop payment for the original visit prematurely, before even speaking to anyone with our company, should negate this complaint in full. 

  We were willing to come back, but the client was not willing to allow that to happen. 

*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. ↩