ComplaintsforRed Apple Air

• Initial Complaint

  08/09/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Red Apple was hired to install mini split. I had stated my preferences on where to install. They went ahead and installed at one of the two spots specified. It wasnt ideal spot and left the line set and condensation draining pipes sticking out. I was told they couldn't drill holes since that would have compromised the structure. I had specified another spot which would have worked better. Also , I should have been informed of this pre-install and not once its all done. I have tried to reach out several times in past few weeks and being told that its is being worked upon. Now I have a brand new addition to house that cannot be used because the air-conditioning isnt ready.

  Business response

  09/09/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/08/22) */ This is issue has been resolved between customer and Red Apple Air. Red Apple Air moved the location of the mini-split to satisfy customers needs.

• Initial Complaint

  03/19/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  In September 2021 Red Apple Air (RAA) was contracted to install two (2) top-tier HVAC systems to replace the original "mid-tier" 4-ton ***** systems in the home. The systems included smart dual HVAC units with a SEER of 18-20, 16 MERV filtering, the replacement of the existing electronic air cleaners with improved units, and higher R-value ducts. At the time RAA said that it would provide a "premium system" (18-20 SEER) for a "mid-tier" (16 SEER) price. RAA did not provide any information or pricing other than the "top-tier system" for the "mid-tier price." However, the actual systems installed by RAA are considered "low-tier", "basic" and the "lowest capability allowable by California law" per industry standards. The HVAC systems installed have a SEER of 14, no electronic air cleaners were installed, and one of the original electronic air cleaners is missing. The purchase of HVAC systems from RAA was contingent on RAA installing the equipment and providing the services agreed upon by RAA and the homeowner. Up until the first building inspection was performed on 23 Nov 2021, RAA claimed that they had installed the "premium tier" systems. As of 18 Mar 2022, the two (2) HVAC systems installed by RAA are not the correct units purchased and are not useable due to contaminants in the ducts (during installation RAA cut and exposed ducts to old attic insulation and construction dust while the HVAC air conditioning was running) and leaks in the ducting system identified by external smoke and other elements being blown out of registers. A list of issues is provided in supporting documentation. Red Apple Air has been contacted several times to install the correct HVAC units, however they have refused.

  Business response

  05/09/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 15, 2022/05/09) */ ***Document Attached*** Per the agreement, and signed by the homeowner **********, the equipment chosen was ******* brand on the agreement that is attached to this response. Buying decision was based on the cost of the installation not the features. If the customer would like to exchange the equipment brand, there is an additional cost for higher tier equipment which was discussed before ********** signed the agreement. **********, signed a checklist stating she was 100% satisfied with Red Apple Air's work which is also attached to this response. The customer has not paid their balance of $******, however, to resolve the issue; Red Apple Air will need to receive balance due from the customer before any additional work can be discussed. Consumer Response /* (3000, 22, 2022/06/15) */ ***Document Attached*** As of 30 May 2022, Red Apple Air (RAA) has not rectified the HVAC issues listed and described in the complaint to the Better Business Bureau. RAA has provided three HVAC contracts to the homeowner to sign, all different and with insufficient details to describe the job contracted (one example was provided with RAA's response to the complaint). The homeowner (**** *****) provided **** ******, RAA salesman, a physical copy of the detailed description of the verbal agreement between **** ******, and herself for inclusion with the contract. The RAA office was aware of the need for including this description since the homeowner had discussed it with **** ******, RAA position unknown. In addition, **** ****** mentioned the conversation between her and **** *****, homeowner, on adding the details to the contract in a conversation with **** *****, homeowner. Since the details provided to **** ****** were not included with the contract posted by RAA, a copy of an email with the details sent as a reminder to **** ****** are posted. The statements below, included in RAA's response, are false and misleading. "Buying decision was based on the cost of the installation not the features. If the customer would like to exchange the equipment brand, there is an additional cost for higher tier equipment which was discussed before **** ***** signed the agreement." **** ****** described the features/functions of only one system, a higher tier than the homeowner's current system when it had been installed (referred to as mid-tier), that would be provided and a single price for that system. Just to reiterate this important point, **** ****** presented one system with one price to **** *****. Different HVAC choices were neither presented nor discussed. Different HVAC tiers and costs were neither presented nor discussed. Since the homeowner (**** *****) was and is very focused on the value of the HVAC system, features provided for price paid, the homeowners solicited a second bid from another company for an HVAC system with the same features described by **** ******. The homeowners were told that the HVAC company could match the RAA price for the features, however they could not include replacing the first-floor ducts and registers which were included in the RAA solicitation. Since RAA was already performing electrical work for the homeowners at the time, they decided to go with RAA. (Note: RAA has still not replaced the first-floor ducts and registers) The statement listed below, included in RAA's response, is false and misleading. "**** *****, signed a checklist stating she was 100% satisfied with Red Apple Air's work which is also attached to this response." The "signature" on the checklist form, included as part of RAA's response to the complaint, is not **** *****'s signature. This occurrence is not the first time RAA has presented documentation that has had a false signature of **** *****. In the past, when called on it, RAA admitted their error and apologized. In fact, **** ***** gave **** ******, RAA salesman, a list of incomplete HVAC installation tasks that were partially worked by RAA on 11/17/21, however several of the tasks were not and are still not addressed and are included in the complaint. The checklist referenced in RAA's response (and posted) was not even presented to **** ***** for signature. At the first city inspection on 11/23/21 **** ***** discovered that the HVAC units installed were not the units agreed upon. **** ***** brought this discrepancy to the attention of **** ****** who took a picture on the incorrect units and said that he would go back to the office and find out what happened. RAA has made no effort to correct their mistakes nor finish the HVAC installation. In addition, RAA has not returned or replaced the Honeywell Electronic Air Cleaner removed as part of the original filter system for the first-floor HVAC zone. The statement listed below, included in RAA's response, is false and misleading. "The customer has not paid their balance of *********** As can be seen by the contract (one of three) posted by RAA the total HVAC installation job was priced at *******, of which at least 80% has been paid even though RAA provided the incorrect HVAC equipment, and the HVAC installation has not yet been completed (see complaint). Business Response /* (4000, 24, 2022/06/16) */ As of June 16, 2022 as stated above this case has been given to Red Apple Air's attorney for further action against **** and **** *****. Information indicated by **** and **** ***** is inaccurate. **** and **** ***** can speak to Red Apple Air's attorney.

*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. ↩