Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #993126

Complaint Review: Flame Heating & Cooling - Warren Michigan

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Levi — Michigan United States of America
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Flame Heating & Cooling 2200 E. Eleven Mile Road Warren, Michigan United States of America

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

   In Feb of 2011 I purchased Flames Gold Service Plan which includes an A/C inspection in the spring and a Furnace inspection in the fall. In addition you also receive a 10% discount on purchases from the company plus they say that when you need service a Gold Service Plan member is moved to the front of the service line.

   During the 2011/2012 winter season Flame did not provide me with a Furnace inspection which was part of my maintenance service plan. Then in Dec of 2011 my Furnace went out and when I called for service it took Flame over 36hrs to respond and fix it. Now keep in mind they didnt miss or skip a billing cycle on my credit card account.

   Then in the spring (May) of 2012 Flame came out to service my A/C for the season. They told me that I was about a pound low on Freon. This indicated a leak in my system somewhere so they offered me their Platinum Plus Service Plan. This plan includes everything as in the Gold Service Plan but also includes an annual Plumbing inspection and an annual Electrical inspection. The Platinum Plus Service Plan also includes a 20% discount on purchases instead of the 10% discount as in the Gold Service Plan.

   So I purchased (upgraded) to the Platinum Plus Service Plan. This way when I decide to purchase a new A/C and Furnace system, I would get a 20% discount on the system. I had contacted Flame on three (3) different occasions to get a sales representative to come and give me a quote on a system. Plus I had contacted Flame in regards to the breach of contract while I was under their Gold Service Plan but Flame was not interested in making things right with me and just gave me their pat answer and said that they are a Good company with good employees and that the issues will be addressed and never happen again.

   So in June 2012 I had a sales representative come out and give me a quote on a new A/C and Furnace system. I was told that I would receive a 20% discount on the entire system plus the remaining balance left on my Platinum Plus Service Plan which was the entire balance because I just purchased that service plan the month prior. I was also to receive a manufacture rebate on the system plus a rebate from my utility company. I agreed to what Flame had offered me and the next day Flame came out to install the new system.

   When I purchased the Platinum Plus Service Plan I had it financed through a financial institution, but Flame tried to Double Bill me by sending me a bill in the mail. Then I got my rebate from the utility company and it was $100 short. The utility company caught an error by Flame and gave me an extra $10 in a rebate so they contacted Flame on my behalf and Flame agreed to make up the difference. But they only gave me $90 instead of $100. This was after contacting the BBB and when I contacted Flame and told them that they shorted me, they told me that I got what I was entitled to and nothing more. Then I was waiting on my manufacture rebate to show up in the mail and it never came. So I contacted Bryant directly and they stated that they never received an application on my behalf.

   At this point I filed a law suit against Flame for the breach of contract while under the Gold Service Plan. Flame wanted to settle out of court so bad that they continually called, left voice mails and emailed me to the point of harassment. They stated that they did not owe me a thing and offered to pay my court costs to settle out of court. What about the basis of the lawsuit? So anyway I got tired of the harassment and told them Id settle if they paid my court costs. The thing was this was on a Monday and court was on Wednesday. I knew they could not get the check to me in time before court. So I went to court on Wednesday and they did not show up so I was granted a default judgment. When Flame received the judgment in the mail they filed a motion to have set aside the default judgment. So another court date was set approximately thirty (30) days later. I filed another law suit against Flame for their failure to submit my manufacture rebate in a timely manner because the expiration date had already come and gone.

   When I showed up for court Flame once again wished to settle out of court. So we went out in the court corridor to discuss the law suits, Flame told me once again that they are a good company with good people and that I received each and every inspection under the Gold Service Plan and that they would make sure that I received everything that I was entitled to and they would make things right with me. Then on the other law suit they presented me with paperwork that showed where they contacted the manufacture on my behalf and Flame got Bryant to agree to submit my rebate on their fall rebate program. Flame just absolutely refuses to take responsibility for anything.

   I contacted the State Attorney Generals office and after they reviewed the information that I submitted they agree with me that Flame has possibly violated the law under our states Consumer Protection Act. I knew that Flame would not hold true to their word and make things right with me so once again I have filed another law suit against them. Its already on court record that the parties have agreed to settle out of court and then to have them fail to follow throughit is very evident that these people have no clue on how to run a business, keep their customers happy or even be truthful during court proceedings. They will tell their customers what they want to hear with no intentions of making it right with them.

   I have two (2) more court cases pending with Flame and will post the outcome. I have filed a total of four (4) law suits against Flame within the last five (5) months. As you can see this company does not have a very good track record. Hopefully the court will rule in my favor and forward the judgments to the State Attorney General which will lead to an investigation and the result will be a class action lawsuit against the company.  

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/08/2013 12:33 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/flame-heating-cooling/warren-michigan-48091/flame-heating-cooling-liecheatdeceptionviolations-of-lawconsumer-protection-act-w-993126. 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

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

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

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
3Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#4 Author of original report

Fraudulent document by Charles Fisher

AUTHOR: Levi68 - ()

POSTED: Thursday, May 15, 2014

On May 14, 2014 Flame Heating and Cooling submitted a statement (Author: Charles Fisher). The statement is titled “Ken Garrett has issued a complete retraction of his Ripoff Report”.

Let it be known that Ken Garrett has not issued any such statement. The statement is a “fraud” and the signature is a “forgery”. Flame Heating and Cooling “cut and pasted” my signature on that “forged” document.

This is the kind of activity that this company appears to be engaged in, illegal activity. It is illegal to “forge” an individual’s name on a “fraudulent” document.

Charles Fisher is/was the General Manager at Flame Heating and Cooling. Why a General Manager would issue a “fraud” statement is beyond me. The last sentence of the statement reads “I want to set the record straight that Flame does provide quality products and services, and does conduct itself in a reputable and good faith manner”. It appears that this statement contradicts the facts.

Charles Fisher is NOT doing Flame Heating and Cooling any favors by publishing “fraudulent” and “forged” documents. This definitely throws Flame Heating and Cooling’s “integrity” into the spotlight.

Why would a retraction statement be written and then be sent to Flame Heating and Cooling? What purpose would that serve?  It makes no sense, especially when there was already a retraction statement posted on September 29, 2013.

If Flame Heating and Cooling is attempting “damage control”, they are going about it the wrong way. They are drawing the wrong kind of attention to themselves.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 UPDATE Employee

Ken Garrett Retraction Letter

AUTHOR: Charles Fisher - ()

POSTED: Wednesday, October 02, 2013

 Ken Garrett has issued a complete retraction of his Ripoff Report

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

600.2911 Action for libel or slander

AUTHOR: Levi68 - ()

POSTED: Tuesday, October 01, 2013

 

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT) Act 236 of 1961

                                       600.2911 Action for libel or slander.

 

Sec. 2911.

(1)   Words imputing a lack of chastity to any female or male are actionable in themselves and subject the person who uttered or published them to a civil action for the slander in the same manner as the uttering or publishing of words imputing the commission of a criminal offense.

(2)(a)   Except as provided in subdivision (b), in actions based on libel or slander the plaintiff is entitled to recover only for the actual damages which he or she has suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, occupation, or feelings.

(b)   Exemplary and punitive damages shall not be recovered in actions for libel unless the plaintiff, before instituting his or her action, gives notice to the defendant to publish a retraction and allows a reasonable time to do so, and proof of the publication or correction shall be admissible in evidence under a denial on the question of the good faith of the defendant, and in mitigation and reduction of exemplary or punitive damages. For libel based on a radio or television broadcast, the retraction shall be made in the same manner and at the same time of the day as the original libel; for libel based on a publication, the retraction shall be published in the same size type, in the same editions and as far as practicable, in substantially the same position as the original libel; and for other libel, the retraction shall be published or communicated in substantially the same manner as the original libel.

(3)   If the defendant in any action for slander or libel gives notice in a justification that the words spoken or published were true, this notice shall not be of itself proof of the malice charged in the complaint though not sustained by the evidence. In an action for slander or for publishing or broadcasting a libel even though the defendant has pleaded or attempted to prove a justification he or she may prove mitigating circumstances including the sources of his or her information and the ground for his or her belief. Damages shall not be awarded in a libel action for the publication or broadcast of a fair and true report of matters of public record, a public and official proceeding, or of a governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body, or for a heading of the report which is a fair and true headnote of the report. This privilege shall not apply to a libel which is contained in a matter added by a person concerned in the publication or contained in the report of anything said or done at the time and place of the public and official proceeding or governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body, which was not a part of the public and official proceeding or governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body.

(4)   A person against whom a judgment is recovered for damages arising out of the authorship or publication of a libel is entitled to recover contribution in a civil action from all persons who were originally jointly liable for the libel with the defendant or defendants, whether joined as defendants or not, to the same extent as and with the same effect that joint sureties are liable to contribute to each other in cases where they are sureties on the same contract. If the libel has been published in a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication or by a radio or television broadcast, the servants and agents of the publisher or proprietor of the periodical or radio or television station or network, and the news agents and other persons who have been connected with the libel only by selling or distributing the publication containing the libel and who have not acted maliciously in selling or publishing the libel, shall not be required to contribute and shall not be taken into account in determining the amount that any joint tort feasor is required to contribute under the provisions of this section. If the author of the libel acted maliciously in composing or securing the printing or the publication of the libel and the printer, publisher, or distributor of the libel acted in good faith and without malice in printing and publishing the libel, the author of the libel is liable in a civil action to that printer, publisher, or distributor for the entire amount of the damages which are recovered against and paid by that printer, publisher, or distributor.

(5)   In actions brought for the recovery of damages for libel in this state, it is competent for the defendant or defendants in the action to show in evidence upon the trial of the action that the plaintiff in the action has previously recovered a judgment for damages in an action for libel to the same or substantially the same purport or effect as the libel for the recovery of damages for which the action has been brought, or that the plaintiff in the action has previously brought an action for the libel or has received or agreed to receive compensation for the libel.

(6)   An action for libel or slander shall not be brought based upon a communication involving public officials or public figures unless the claim is sustained by clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.

(7)   An action for libel or slander shall not be brought based upon a communication involving a private individual unless the defamatory falsehood concerns the private individual and was published negligently. Recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees.

(8)   As used in this section, “libel” includes defamation by a radio or television broadcast.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Author of original report

Retraction

AUTHOR: Levi68 - ()

POSTED: Saturday, September 28, 2013

This is a retraction request for the posting on Flame Heating and Cooling. There has been an out of court settlement in regards to Flame Heating and Cooling.

I have requested that Ripoff Report remove my posting and acting in good faith to meet the conditions of the out of court settlement as agreed upon by both parties.

If Ripoff Report does not remove the posting as requested please consider this an honest effort to have the posting removed. 

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now