Better Business Bureau

Diana Mendez
Assistant Manager-Home/Transportation Services

Complaint ID#: 94208140
Business Name: Energy Savers Vinyl Windows

Ms. Mendez:

I will address the response of Energy Saver’s paragraph according to how it is marked from the paperwork I received from the Better Business Bureau:

1. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: Fred Nance is satisfied with the work that Energy Savers did. Nance Response: The issue is not about whether I am satisfied with the work that was done by Energy Savers. Talking about that: I have screw tips that installers installed that have exposed tips, which could injure someone. These tips should have been “budded” to prevent injury to people. I want the ends of these screws budded.

2. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: If John Pro Tree Service damage something and are will to pay for damage what’s the problem. I don’t think John’s Pro Tree Service works for free. Nance Response: John Pro Tree Service stated they would pay for the downspout when it receives a billing statement from me, which I should get from Energy Savers when they make the repairs. I informed Energy Savers’ representative Joe Lipuma that John’s Pro Tree Service would pay for the downspout replacement. Energy Savers and Joe Lipuma decided they were going to ignore my request to fix the downspout, and in fact, deny claims such as downspout and screws that are explicit in their contract for services. See Energy Savers’ service contract stating “…Customer Satisfaction: We at Energy Savers Vinyl Windows value your business. If at any time you are unsatisfied with our service, we would like the opportunity to remedy any issues that you may have. Our main objective is customer satisfaction….” See attached Energy Savers’ contract received for services to my home.

3. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: A downspout is very simple…to come out an do assessment it’s just a down spout – if there is a hole in it we do not repair hole we replace the downspout because that’s the correct way to fix it. Nance Response: If the downspout is so simple, why didn’t Energy Savers’ come out and fix it. An assessment is an evaluation, a judgment about something based on an understanding of the situation. An assessment is what any logical business person would do before any repairs or installation of a product. An assessment allows a business to know what is needed for the work. Before Energy Savers did the work on my home Mr. Lipuma did an assessment/evaluation of the property. I never asked Energy Savers to fix the hole in the downspout. I asked them to replace the downspout. I informed Mr. Lipuma that I had a piece of downspout vinyl his installers left that fit the section of drain spout needed. This statement suggests a down spout replacement, not a “hole” fix. See original letter from me, paragraph #4.

4. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: We do not piece together down spouts not the correct way to fix it. Nance Response: The downspout mentioned here in paragraph 3 is a full piece of downspout. There is nothing to piece together. It is a perfect fit, with extra length. It is their product.

5. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: Our fax machine here is used for ordering and receiving orders only. Nance Response: I have no response.

6. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: The cost to replace not repair downspout is 199 labor & material if Mr. Nance think 199 is to much have John’s Pro Tree Service replace it. Nance Response: John’s Pro Tree Service will incur the cost for repair. I hope the cost of this replacement is universal with the pricing of other entities providing similar services.

7. Energy Savers’ Response to my complaint: I would like to have the BBB consider removing this complaint because we have a customer that got damage done by another company may be the complaint should have been to John’s Pro Tree Service if Mr. Nance is looking for a estimate for repair we can send him one. Nance Response: I am not sure what Energy Savers is saying here, but I will attempt to respond. The Better Business Bureau should not remove the complaint from their files because the damage was done by another company. The complaint is on Energy Savers. The complaint is about Energy Savers’ policy on Customer Satisfaction. Energy Savers refused to live up to its policies. John’s Pro Tree Service has always acted with integrity and honesty. John’s Pro Tree Service specializes in tree trims, bush removal, tree cutting, stump removal, etc.

Energy Savers gives a post script to its response. Energy Savers states “isn’t it terrible to have a hit on you’re BBB report over something so Stupid.” Energy Savers also states “My salesman even offered to come out to Mr. Nance’s home and fix it himself but Mr. Nance said he put a bad rap on us in his blog and now the BBB Mr. Nance is on his own don’t call us for anything.” Nance Response: I guess Energy Savers is Stupid. What company would allow their integrity and honesty challenged over an event that they could have so easily rectified? This story tells us that Energy Savers has no integrity and honesty. Energy Savers surely does not honor its “Customer Satisfaction” policy. This is exactly why I posted my complaint on the Internet and with the Better Business Bureau. This statement violates Energy Savers “Customer Satisfaction” policy. Energy Savers should be held to the standards of their company policy. To say, “…don’t call us for anything” violates Energy Savers’ policy.

Posting truth on the Internet is in agreement with the 1^st Amendment clause of the United States Constitution, Freedom Speech. Second, if Energy Savers’ salesman offered to come out to “evaluate” and fix the problem, why didn’t he come? Just because I exercised my right to “free speech” does not give Energy Savers the right to violate its company policy. Energy Savers should be prosecuted to full extent of the law. I will post this response on my blogs. I will post this response to the Better Business Bureau on their website in its response section. I will mail this response to Ms. Diana Mendez by Certified Mail to assure its receipt and to assure the Better Business Bureau has a copy of Energy Savers' "Customer Satisfaction" policy.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Nance Jr.

October 31, 2008

Re:       Future home improvement investors should beware of those businesses promoting customer satisfaction and care that neither provide customer satisfaction nor care after they get your money.

Mr. Shaheen:

On or about July 2, 2007 Energy Savers installed windows, soffits, gutters, drains and downspouts on my home. I paid $10,000.00 for this purchase and labor. Energy Savers’ has a clause in their contract stating, “Customer Satisfaction: If at any time you are unsatisfied with our service, we would like the opportunity to remedy any issues that you may have. Our main objective is customer satisfaction….” This is not true. Customer Satisfaction is not the goal of Energy Savers.

On October 24, 2008 Pro Tree Service removed a tree in the backyard of my home. The tree removal employees punched a hole in the downspout of the drain on the North-front side of my home. Pro Tree Service owner John Baio informed me he would pay for the cost of repair.

On October 24, 2008 I called Energy Savers requesting a home visit to assess the repair. I talked to Lucy, who may be the administrative assistant of Energy Savers, informing her of the issue. Lucy called me back on or about October 27, 2008 with a quote from the owner Bill Shaheen, which seemed ridiculous to me without an assessment of damage. Instead of providing home service to assess the repair, Lucy gave me some ridiculous price to fix this hole.

On October 24, 2008 I called Joseph Lipuma, the salesperson of my purchase. I informed him of what I needed. Mr. Lipuma told me to have the tree removal people repair the downspout. I informed Mr. Lipuma this suggestion was inappropriate. I informed Mr. Lipuma his suggestion was absurd. I informed Mr. Lipuma I have a piece of downspout vinyl left by the original installers that would fit the damaged area. I requested he visit my home and assess the damage for repair. Mr. Lipuma made several appointments, but has failed to come to my home to assess the damage.

On October 31, 2008 I called Energy Savers talking to Lucy about this issue again. I asked for the name of the owner of Energy Savers so that I could address this letter appropriately. Lucy told me she could not give me that information.

Energy Savers is located in the township of Orland Park, Illinois. I called the township of Orland Park’s Business and Development to get the business information for Energy Savers since I was being denied access to it by Energy Savers. The Orland Park Business and Development entity states they do not have a fax number on file for this company. This is strange.

What does Energy Savers have to hide? Why would a company deny its customers their owner’s name? I asked Lucy for the fax number to Energy Savers so that I could send this letter to them by fax. Lucy informed me that Energy Savers does not have a fax number. Why would a company hide the fax number information from their customers?

Viewers of my blogs: How many companies do you know that deny you access to their fax numbers? There is something wrong with the business ethics of Energy Savers.

Therefore, I respectfully request a home visit to reasonably assess the damage of my downspout so repairs can be made, paid for, the cost passed on to Pro Tree Removal for payment.

I will drive to the Energy Savers location in Orland Park and hand-deliver this letter.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Nance Jr.

cc:

Pro Tree Service

October 27, 2008

Mr. Conlon:

Harlem Furniture contracts with Stainsafe for repair service with its furniture needs. I was informed by your representative that you company, Conlon & Sons, provide services for Stainsafe. Stainsafe has 196 complaints against its organization on www.ripoffreport.com/.

On Friday, October 24, 2008, I was scheduled for a repair appointment for furniture I bought from Harlem Furniture. When I purchased my furniture from Harlem Furniture I bought a warranty with Stainsafe, which utilizes your company to provide repair services. My appointment time frame was 8:00 am to 12:00 pm.

At approximately 10:30 am, I received a call from your representative stating my repair person’s car had broken down and he was at the repair shop to get it fixed. I was told when he got his car fixed he would be coming to my house. I received a call late Friday afternoon, October 24, 2008, from your representative stating my repair person would not be coming out. I waited for your repair person for over 7 hours before I got a call stating he was not coming. I was told I had to re-schedule. I re-scheduled for Monday, October 27, 2008, between the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 am.

On Monday, October 27, 2008, at approximately 8:15 am I had to make a run out of the neighborhood. I left because your repair person had not showed up and thinking about the wait I had Friday, October 24, 2008, I believed I would get a courtesy call to alert me to when this repair person would come to my house.

At approximately 8:35 am I received a call from your representative stating your repair person was sitting outside my home. I informed your representative I was not at home. Your representative asked me how long will it take for me to get home. I informed your representative I would be home in 30 minutes. I got home at approximately 9:00 am. I called your office and your representative told me I had to re-schedule for another day. Sir, I have a problem with the service I am receiving with your company.

On Friday, October 24, 2008, I waited for 6 hours, all day at home for your service. No one showed up. I did not get upset. I re-scheduled. On Monday, October 27, 2008, your representative told me I did not ask for a call to alert me your repair person was on there way. Sir, I should not have to ask for this call. This is a courtesy call, which I should have received anyway because of Friday, October 24, 2008. I deserved a courtesy call.

On Monday, October 27, 2008, your representative informed me your repair person was stuck in traffic for 2 hours coming to my house. I am not sure where your repair person is traveling from to come to my house, but coming to my house is driving against the traffic, not with the traffic. What I mean there is no traffic coming to my house. All the traffic is going toward downtown Chicago. I live in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, if your repair person was stuck in traffic, I should have received a courtesy call stating so, because I waited as I did on Friday, October 24, 2008, I should have received a courtesy call.

Your representative informs me now I have to make another appointment, and they were very adamant and unconcerned about my service. This is totally unprofessional. On Monday, October 27, 2008, I have spoken to Suelette and Antoinette from your office. I informed Suelette and Antoinette that I would write this letter, sending a copy to Harlem Furniture, posting it on my blogs and posting it on www.ripoffreport.com/.

From viewing www.ripoffreport.com/, it appears it is 196 complaints against Stainsafe. Stainsafe employs your company to repair the items it contracts for with various furniture stores. Sir, how does your company fair with www.ripoffreport.com/?

Sir, I want service today, Monday, October 27, 2008. I have asked to speak to a supervisor. I have been told your supervisor is Linda. I have been repeatedly told that Linda is not available. The last response I received from your representative about speaking to Linda is that she is in a meeting. I would like to receive a call about my issue. Please respond.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Nance Jr.

cc:

July 30, 2008

CERTIFIED MAIL

Mr. Walker:

The Illinois Department of Corrections has not offered a rational basis for locking out Fred Nance Jr., which was an adverse employment action on or about May 14, 2008.

On May 1, 2006 I began working at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) as a counselor III for Gateway Foundation, Inc. (Gateway) On or about November 1, 2006, Gateway relinquished their counseling contract with the State of Illinois at Sheridan. On or about November 1, 2006, WestCare Foundation, Inc. (WestCare) began providing counseling services at Sheridan.

On Mother’s Day, May 12, 2008, Mr. Stanley Brooks, WestCare Director, called me while I was having dinner with my mother stating Warden Michael Rothwell had locked me out of Sheridan. I asked Mr. Brooks if Warden Rothwell gave a reason for the lockout. Mr. Brooks informed me he was not given a reason for the lockout.

On or about May 15, 2008 I received a letter from WestCare dated May 14, 2008 stating, in part, “…Please let this letter serve as a notification that your employment with WestCare is being terminated, effective May 14, 2008, due to the determination of the Illinois Department of Corrections to issue an Administrative Lockout of your security clearance at Sheridan Correctional Facility. As you are aware, it is a requirement of employment that you maintain an active security clearance to enter the facility….” (WestCare letter attached)

Sir, please provide a basis and cause, along with supporting documentation, for the Administrative Lockout of the security clearance for Fred Nance Jr.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred L Nance Jr.

cc:

Re:       Bank of America 4673671189116

Joseph & Stephens Associates:

Please be advised: During the first week of October 2008, Mr. Steve Larrimore called me threatening and intimidating me and my family with litigation regarding this account. Mr. Larrimore informed me he had reason to believe I owed a debt for this account. I informed Mr. Larrimore I did not have nor have I ever had an account with the Bank of America. I asked Mr. Larrimore to give me some details about this debt, and why he believed I owed this debt. Mr. Larrimore refused to elaborate on the account, stating since I did not want to take ownership of the debt he would start litigation against me. I informed Mr. Larrimore since he was not going to discuss this alleged debt with me, that he should call me anymore. Mr. Larrimore informed me I would be receiving litigation paperwork in the mail at the end of October 2008.

On or about October 14, 2008 I received a letter of settlement on this account suggesting I owed a current amount of $4,838.38. The letter states a settlement offer of $3,139.04 with a settlement date of October 24, 2008. On or about October 16, 2008 my daughter received the same letter at her address. I do not live with my daughter. On October 20, 2008 I called and left a message for Mr. Larrimore. Mr. Larrimore returned my call and refused to give me any information on this account, which he is charging me with being delinquent. Mr. Larrimore informed me that since I did not take ownership the litigation proceedings have gone forward against me.

Wherefore the foregoing, if I receive any litigation papers in the mail or by any other means of delivery I will proceed with a counterclaim stating threats, intimidation and defamation of character to start. I will be seeking damages for legal fees, court costs and any and all other remedies the court of jurisdiction deems necessary and appropriate for the willful, nefarious and deliberate acts complained.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Nance Jr.

cc:

Court of Jurisdiction