• Report: #1010347

Complaint Review: Brian Wendling, owner of Rolling Suds, Inc.

  • Submitted: Thu, February 07, 2013
  • Updated: Thu, February 21, 2013

  • Reported By: Irene — Doylestown Pennsylvania United States of America
Brian Wendling, owner of Rolling Suds, Inc.
262 Titus Avenue, Unit A-101 Warrington, Pennsylvania United States of America

Brian Wendling, owner of Rolling Suds, Inc. Beware of pressure-washers' "MAGIC WANDS" Warrington, Pennsylvania

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Last comments.

*Author of original report: Rebuttal and Update--February 20, 2013

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Slanderous Allegations

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

On October 5, 2012, Rolling Suds power-washed our home and in the process caused $1175 damage to the generator transfer switch unit.  Due to significant amount of water inside this box, the electrician who installed the unit believes that inappropriate amount of pressure was used near and possibly on the unit. Since the transfer switch box is weather-resistant, not pressure-washer proof, precautions should have been by taken by avoiding this area or by covering this unit to prevent damage.  This has not been done by the Rolling Suds crew. 

When I contacted the owner, Brian Wendling, to explain what happened, there was no apology from him.  In addition, in a very intimidating manner, he proceeded to tell me that it was not his fault because there was no seal on the unit and I should collect from the electrician who installed the unit over a year and a half ago.  After not hearing from him for two days, I e-mailed him to set up a time when he could come to see the damage and possibly reach a fair resolution to this problem.  He responded that he and his electrician were on my premises Sunday morning when I was not home and concluded that no restitution should be coming from him.  I found his lack of sensitivity and his attitude unsettling.  In addition, I find the fact that he was on my premises without my presence or permission very unprofessional.

Back and forth e-mailing continued for two months.  I paid out-of-pocket for the replacement of the unit. I also proceeded to issue a complaint to BBB and alert them that he has their logo on his home page that says that he is an accredited member.  According to BBB, his accreditation has been suspended due to unresolved complaints. A credible effort has been made by BBB to resolve this complaint, however, Wendling insisted on a complete "retraction" of anything negative I reported about his company.  I refused to "retract" and this fiasco ended up in small claims court.

This issue was finally resolved in December in the small claims court, unfortunately not in my favor.  The reason for my loss was not provided and my subsequent request for a reason was denied. I can only assume that the loss was due to the lack of permit for the initial installation of the generator.  I did, however, get a permit for the newly installed transfer switch unit and it passed UL inspection.  I assume that it was more important to the judge that I failed to get a permit than the fact that damage occured in the first place because proper precautions were not taken.  

Throughout the court hearing, Wendling insisted that his crew did nothing wrong.  I would have liked to question the man who actually did the damage, but unfortunately, he was not present at the hearing.  When I asked why precautions that are listed in numerous on-line sites were not taken, Wendling comments were that those are for do-it-yourself homeowners, not for "professionals" like him.  Apparently, Wendling and his crew must own some "magic wands" that can do no wrong around electrical components.  Subsequently, I have talked to a number of power washing companies and they said that if incorrect high-pressure is used around or on the unit, it could even rip off the seal.  Since there was a substantial amount of water inside the unit, there is no doubt that appropriate pressure was not used and could have broken off the seal that Wendling says was never there.

Two weeks after the court decision, Wendling e-mailed me demanding immediate payment of $500 for his "service" or "he will take me to court" and insisted that I "retract" all negative comments made to BBB.  Obviously, he feels vindicated because of the court decision.  I decided to pay him, but I will never "retract" anything that I said in any correspondence nor has he been vindicated by me.  He is an unsensitive businessman who does not have customer satisfaction on his agenda even though he advertises that he does.  Any reputable businessman would have negated the service charge and would have apologized for the highly unpleasant and stressful experience.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/07/2013 10:07 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Brian-Wendling-owner-of-Rolling-Suds-Inc/Warrington-Pennsylvania-18976/Brian-Wendling-owner-of-Rolling-Suds-Inc-Beware-of-pressure-washers-MAGIC-WANDS-War-1010347. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Brian Wendling, owner of Rolling Suds, Inc.

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
1Author 0Consumer 2Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Last comments.

AUTHOR: Brian - (USA)

Again. I stand behind my work, and my business. I have made my statements. I have been taken to court and won.  As a professional, I wish to know longer engage myself with this back and forth. This will be my last comments on this matter.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

Rebuttal and Update--February 20, 2013

AUTHOR: Irene - (United States of America)

Mr. Wendling, owner of Rolling Suds, Inc., is treading on thin ice by accusing me of slander and internet libel.  At this point, I feel that I should reiterate the facts and allow the potential consumers to make an educated decision as to whether they should or should not use his services.

Fact 1Mr. Wendlling claims that the worker used low pressure when power washing the siding.  The fact is that there were no witnesses present to corroborate this claim. The other worker was working in the front of the house and I was inside the house at that time.  Therefore, Mr. Wendlings assumption that the worker did nothing wrong is false since the generator was functional until damage was done with the use of the wand.   Based on the amount of water inside the unit, my electrician and I can only assume that proper water pressure was not used or that water was sprayed on the unit itself.  In addition, if we follow the directions in various manuals and on-line sites on how to use the pressure washing wands around electrical components, the recommended precautions were not taken. On-line sites indicate that electrical components should be covered or completely avoided when power washing and the fact remains that this was not done.

Fact 2Mr. Wendling was not given permission to be on my premises without my presence.   The fact that he did not call me and arrived on my premises in such a surreptitious manner makes me wonder whether there was really an electrician present.  And if he was, I question how reliable and professional he was in his assessment that the unit was not properly installed. The fact is that my electrician is an authorized and exclusive Generac dealer who installs hundreds of these units and there is no doubt in my mind that the unit was installed properly.

Fact 3Due to misinformation from the township, I did not get a permit for the initial installation of the generator.  However, after I replaced the damaged transfer switch box, I deemed it necessary to inquire again if a permit was needed and this time, I was informed correctly and proceeded to fulfill the necessary requirements.  The unit passed inspection.  The fact is that the new unit was installed in exactly the same manner as the damaged unit.  The fact that I did not acquire a permit initially was probably the reason that I lost the case.  Obviously, this is important in the courts and I hope that consumers who read this learn from my mistakes.

Fact 4The worker who did the damage was not present in court.  Does Mr. Wendling really think that I would forget what his worker looked like?  In fact, when he introduced the two men in court as his workers, I stated at that time that I only recognized one of them.  In retrospect, I should have asked Mr. Wendling why the worker who did the damage was not present.  It would have been interesting to hear his response.  No doubt he would have challenged me and I would have substantial proof, since I did receive a note from this worker that said backup generator box on side of house was smoking from getting wet.

Fact 5Mr. Wendlings statement that I am accusing the judge of doing his job wrong is false.  Nowhere in my review did I accuse the judge of wrongdoing.  However, I do have the right to disagree with the judges decision and have the right to legally appeal this case in the Court of Common Pleas.  His comments such as the judge would find it very interesting or that he must take the necessary steps to protect himself and his company from internet libel is additional proof of intimidation that I have been subjected to from the very first contact I had with him. With only two short phone conversations with Mr. Wendling, I knew from the beginning that I wanted no more contacts with him except through email or post. 

Fact 6Mr. Wendling is falsely advertising on his home page that he is a certified member of UAMCC (United Association of Mobile Contract Cleaners).   I have been in touch with the Board of Directors of this organization and have learned that he has not been a member since 2010. I understand that they have sent him correspondence asking him to remove the logo from the home page.  To date, this has not been done.  I believe that the Federal Trade Commission would find it interesting to learn that he is misleading the public by falsely advertising that he is a member of an organization whose goal it is to raise the standard of the profession.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Slanderous Allegations

AUTHOR: Brian - (USA)

The complaints in this review by Mrs. P**** are slanderous and her facts are incorrect. The process we use to power wash homes is low pressure, along with bio-degradable products. This allows us to clean 1,000 plus homes every year, in a safe and effective manner. We have done so for over 23 years. Upon review of before and after pictures taken by my crew, it was determined the box was installed improperly. 

 

In the first phone conversation we had, on the afternoon of October 5th. I had discussed my concern, and told Mrs. P**** I would hire an electrician and come out with him to assess any damage. She agreed. I came out 2 days later, on not only my day off but also the electricians day off. I believe this was a prompt response.  Upon reviewing the box the electrician informed me it was installed improperly. I explained to Mrs. P****, I had the right to investigate and review any allegations made against my company. Her continued response was to go through my insurance company and have them pay. After many request made by me, for Mrs. P**** to have another electrician of her own choice to come out and inspect the box, my requests were denied.

 

After continued emails over the next several weeks, her choice was to take me to court. After much thought I had offered to pay.  This was not due to any admission of wrong doing on my part, but simply to put and end to this matter and try to satisfy the customer.  She denied my offer, and continued to take me to court.

 

Mrs. P****'s statement of "I would have liked to question the man who actually did the damage, but unfortunately, he was not present at the hearing" is false.  In a large court room with only six people present,  myself, my  two employees, Mr. and Mrs. P**** and the judge.  How could Mrs. P**** make that statement?  Especially after I had introduced my employees to the judge.  The judge specifically asked her if she had any questions. Her response was to go on a rant about what she thinks happened.  The judge even had to redirect her back to asking a question of me and my company.  Not once did she take the opportunity to address them.  She showed the judge pictures of inside the box, (hours after we had cleaned her house) that her electrician had taken.  He asked her two times, why is there rust inside the box   Her response was, I do not know

 

Any legitimate electrician should have known they needed a permit and inspection after installing this unit.  The fact that she had one the second time around raises a question.  The damage occurred because there were no proper precautions taken by her electrician to install it properly or have any inspections after to make sure it was done properly.

 

Not only is Mrs. P**** accusing me of doing my job wrong, now she is accusing the judge for doing his job wrong.  I feel the judge will find that very interesting.

 

The Better Business Bureau themselves retracted Mrs. P****'s complaints upon reviewing a copy of the judges ruling. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
X