SA in Toronto

The said company was retained to repair a garage furnace. The repair included replacing a damaged electronic gas valve. A total of $667 was charged for the repair. The furnace was tested several days later, however, the device did not function. A follow up call resulted in company representatives examining the furnace and concluding that the furnace is functioning, yet no coherent explanation was provided as of prior malfunction. This time another $120 was charged. Upon enquiring as of why a follow up call on a repair is chargeable, condescending remarks such as "we are not a charity" were made by company manager. Also although receipts were provided on both occasions, the first one contained inconsistent information. For example, the valve price on the receipt was noted twice, first as $347.70 and second as $367.70. The latter price was used to calculate the total, which also included the curious item "truck" evaluated at $30 - presumably a mileage charge, as the owner claimed he had to go buy the part. However, the owner refused to provide an original part receipt upon request. To summarize: It is difficult to comprehend why would a furnace not function when tested after being "repaired", yet it will start functioning after a second visit. Second, why would a follow up visit for an apparent malfunction after a "repair" had to be charged for. Third, the refusal of the company manager to provide an original receipt for a part he claimed to have been replaced, along with the fact that two different prices for the said part were quoted, casts serious doubt upon manager's integrity. Several attempts to resolve the issue with the manager were futile.