ComplaintsforBest Choice HVAC

• Initial Complaint

  05/17/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Business sold a control board for an HVAC unit. I purchased specifically from this seller because it listed a 90 day warranty in the title. The control board initially functioned, but failed after about 6 weeks -- well within the 90 day warranty listed. I contacted the seller and was told to test additional equipment. I did so and confirmed that the control board was bad. Seller has issued only limited responses since confirmation of the bad product and is clearly avoiding honoring the 90 day warranty, even with contact from ***** **** has made it clear that even though it lists a 90 day warranty the seller has selected no returns after 30 days. They are advertising fraudulently. I understand that this is likely to result in nothing, but I want the fraudulent activity recorded.

  Business response

  06/03/2024

  From the BUSINESS:

  Sent 6/3/2024 9:17:54 AM

  Read on 6/3/2024 9:27:41 AM

  The buyer did not follow the proper instructions to receive the 90-day warranty. They never returned anything at all. The unit worked upon installation and we offered tech support because this buyer has an underlying issue causing the failure. He purchased the part, opened, installed, used, damaged, then demanded a refund. We responded and told them we would test the board on arrival if they needed to return. This person should be ashamed of themselves for trying to hurt someone's small business with fraudulent claims. We will be looking into options on slander and defamation. The buyer ADMITTED he only chose my store because he planned to use it and return it. That is against our policy and not included in the 90-day warranty guarantee. The part we shipped WAS NOT DEFECTIVE. IT WAS DAMAGED BY THIS BUYER. We offer free tech support and free returns. ***** did not return anything and did not follow the included instructions for the 90-day warranty.

  From the BUSINESS:

  Sent 6/3/2024 9:27:16 AM

  Read on 6/3/2024 9:27:54 AM

  Here is the message where he clearly states he planned to abuse the return policy. He knew he was going to open, use, and return the part which is against our policy. This person is abusing the **** return policy and make false claims against by business and i want it removed.

  Business response

  06/03/2024

  Here is the message where he clearly states he planned to abuse the return policy. He knew he was going to open, use, and return the part which is against our policy. This person is abusing the **** return policy and make false claims against by business and i want it removed.

  Customer response

  06/03/2024

   
  Complaint: 21725217
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  I am rejecting this response because:  The seller is using a message out of context in a misleading manner.  I have attached the entire transcript of our message history including the message the seller attached. It is labeled 06.03.24 Communications & it has organized tabs by date and name within for each message.  It includes all of our communications.  Additionally, I've refuted the message point by point below.  It is organized according to a direct quote of the seller's claim and my response and includes references to tabs within the 06.03.24 Communications PDF.

  Please note that at this point I've also requested corrective action from ***** ********** (our credit card company), the Tennessee ************************** and the California Attorney General's office.  I do not request anything beyond refund of the amount paid and that this complaint be noted under the business's name.  Its important for people to be able to see potential issues from the people they are purchasing from.    

  
  1.   Seller Claim 1:  The buyer did not follow the proper instructions to receive the 90-day warranty. They never returned anything at all.

          Response:  No instructions were provided by the seller regarding warranty.  No information was provided with the package.  No return instructions were provided by the seller following warranty claim.  As I was told by **** the seller was the one that had to initiate the return process since they did not keep the return window open as long as the claimed product warranty.  This is noted in a message sent to the seller on May 15, 2024 and noted in the attached files as "05.15.24 Return Request."  It was also again requested for the seller to initiate the return 05.17.24 which is also noted in the attached transcript as "05.17.24 Return Request".

  2.  Seller Claim 2:  (2.1)The unit worked upon installation  and we offered tech support because this buyer has an underlying issue causing the failure. (2.2) He purchased the part, opened, installed, used, damaged, then demanded a refund. (2.3)We responded and told them we would test the board on arrival if they needed to return.

  
           Response 2.1   The underlying issues that the seller refers to were resolved prior to ordering the board on 02.23.24. Those issues caused damage to the original control board related to cooling (not heat). While the heat was functional the lack of cooling necessitated the order of a replacement board from the seller.   All issues were resolved prior to ordering the board from the seller.

           Response:  2.2  The replacement board from the seller restored cooling function and also functioned for heating when it was installed.  It was not touched again until the heat ceased to function through no fault of the buyer or tenants.  Immediately following the lack of function the seller was contacted on 04.23.24 with a request to return.  (04.23.24 initial contact)  Seller did not know what the error code from the board and the 'tech' support offered was that they were confident that the board was good and that I should test additional switches.  These switches already tested via the troubleshooting link I sent to the seller indicated that the board was bad ( 04.24.24 Error Code Response ).  I offered to check the switches again. (04.25.24 Switch Check) Following a second round of testing those switches it was clear that the seller provided board was defective.  I needed to get heat back from my tenants as quickly as possible so rather than go back an forth with the seller I purchased another board from a different source an installed it.  The newly installed board immediately functioned properly and there have been no issues since it was installed.  Given the following conversations it seems clear that I made a good decision to purchase a separate board as the seller had no intention of honoring the warranty.  It should also be noted that the seller claims that I damaged the board.  The seller does not have any proof that would even suggest I damaged the product. This is entirely conjecture and is entirely without factual basis.

          Response:  2.3  I then contacted the seller again on 05.11.24 (05.11.24 Return request) with a very direct request to return the defective part under warranty.  I then sent and additional message two days later on 05.13.24 to follow up after receiving no response( 05.13.24 Return follow up ).  ****** responded again that they 'were confident that the board they sent' and did not provide any return information.  I responded with two messages 05.14.24 ( 05.14.24 Return follow up 2 & 05.14.24 Testing Statement) stating that the board the seller sent was defective and that I would like to return it along with testing procedures that I used in verification of the defective board.  ****** responded that they would test the board upon arrival but did not provide any return instructions or assurance of warranty refund.  I responded to this on 05.15.24 (05.15.24 Statement of Facts) that the seller had listed a product with a 90 day warranty, that product ceased functioning within the 90 day window, that I had requested a return and seen no movement, and that I would be requesting remedy to the fraud perpetrated by the seller through the BBB, ************************** ****, and Credit card company.  Seller then directed me to the **** return page for the product.  The product was listed outside of return window despite it being well within the 90 day window and I was told by **** that the return had to be initiated by the seller.  I contacted the seller on 05.15.24 (05.15.24 Request to Initiate Return) stating that the return window showed as closed and that the return had to be initiated from the sellers end.  I did not receive a response from the seller following that message despite two additional messages.  One on 05.17.24 (05.17.24 Follow up on request to initiate return) and one on 05.23.24 (05.23.24 Request to honor 90 day warranty).  It is my belief that the seller was attempting to 'run out the clock' until 05.23.24 -- 90 day from purchase -- to avoid honoring the warranty and that all messages were only an attempt to show the appearance of compliance.  

  3.  Seller Claim 3:   (3.1) This person should be ashamed of themselves for trying to hurt someone's small business with fraudulent claims. We will be looking into options on slander and defamation. (3.2) The buyer ADMITTED he only chose my store because he planned to use it and return it. That is against our policy and not included in the 90-day warranty guarantee. (3.3)The part we shipped WAS NOT DEFECTIVE. IT WAS DAMAGED BY THIS BUYER. We offer free tech support and free returns. (3.4)Buyer did not return anything and did not follow the included instructions for the 90-day warranty.

  Response: 3.1  I'm well within my rights to file a complaint for advertisement of a product as warrantied then refusal to warrant that product.  That falls very clearly under the legal definition of fraud and I'm entitled to seek remedy for the situation.  Slander or libel is not relevant in this case as there is no attempt to damage reputation.  I'm simply seeking remedy for false advertising using appropriate means: BBB, The ************************* **** online marketplace, and my payment methods.  If the seller chooses to involve civil litigation in this means that is their purview.

  Response: 3.2  The seller is taking a statement out of context.  First off, I had no intention of returning the original part under warranty for a refund after installing it.  That would not have made sense.  The part was purchased 02.23.24 with a claimed 90 day warranty ending on 05.23.24.  This was to replace the original board (board 1).  The tenants are not scheduled to move out until 06.30.24 -- more than 120 days after purchase of the control board and more than 30 days after the claimed warranty was to end.  There would have been no way for me to claim warranty at that point.  What the message does show is me illustrating the situation I was in with the defective board (board 2) sent by the seller in order to help speed the return along.  It also shows my initial offer to receive a replacement board (board 3) rather than a refund for the defective board (board 2).  What was being offered in the message was to return the original defective board sold by the seller (board 2) in order to get a functional replacement (board 3) that could keep the **** unit running until the tenants moved out.  No refund requested at this point (04.23.24) or required for that transaction.    The replacement (board 3) needed to last until after June 30th after which I was willing to send (board 3) back to the seller (with no refund) along with any additional parts from the unit requested by the seller.  My entire goal was to get a replacement to the defective board (board 1) as quickly as possible to restore heating for my tenants.   I thought the offer to the seller might grease the wheels since they would get both the defective board (board 1) and the replacement (board 2) back along with functional parts --  Parts that they then would be able to re-sell or repair to sell.  This is all readily apparent if you read my message on 04.23.24 and understand the context in which it was sent (04.23.24 Initial Contact)

  Response: 3.3  This is entirely without merit, there's nothing in all of our communications that would remotely suggest suggest that I was responsible for the board not functioning.  There's nothing that supports this claim.

  Response: 3.4  See response 1 and refer to: 05.11.24 Return Request, 05.15.24 Request to Initiate Return, 05.17.24 Follow up Request to initiate return, and 05.23.24 Request to Honor 90 day warranty

  4.  Seller Claim:   (4.1)  Here is the message where he clearly states he planned to abuse the return policy. He knew he was going to open, use, and return the part which is against our policy. (4.2) This person is abusing the **** return policy and make false claims against by business and i want it removed.  

  Response: 4.1  Please see my response in 3.1 & 3.2.  Seller is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the message.  There is nothing in the initial message that states I planned to use the product then return it for a refund.  Context is important, the statement that I needed the product to function for three more months is clearly in regards to the request for a replacement board to be sent in lieu of  a refund, not the original defective board provided by the seller.  (04.23.24 Initial contact)

  Response: 4.2  I did not ask or attempt to return a functional product.  I was sold a product that initially functioned then ceased to function.  That product was listed with a 90 day warranty a feature advertised heavily on the sellers online marketplace.  See  I requested to return a defective product that should have been covered under warranty that the seller lists on both the product and their online marketplace.  Please see "Home of the 90 day warranty".  If the seller would like this complaint to be removed they should honor their warranties.

  I hope my responses are clear.   If you need any additional clarification please let me know.

  Thank You,

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

*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. ↩