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

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.

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.

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.