Pros On Call, LLC

We apologize for the inconvenience this has caused, and recognize the frustration that may have come as a result of the poor communication between the office and client. In this particular instance, the client had actually originally called another company, AMS, which acts as a lead service, who...

out-sourced the work to us because we have better coverage in the area. Therefore, I cannot account for the poor service you received over the phone, although I do sympathize and will do my best to rectify the situation and prevent it from happening in the future. We do, however, accept responsibility for the delay in getting the technician back out to you in a reasonable time. The technicians hesitancy stemmed from the fact that the lock seemed to be working with no issues for two months, prior to us being called out again. Nonetheless, we do honor our warranties, and dispatch did instruct the technician to return; his unwillingness to do so in a prompt fashion is being taken very seriously, and will affect our ability to work with him in the future. Some of the communication issues seem to stem from the fact that our office, as well as the technician, did attempt to contact Beverly, but received no answer. We schedule open jobs for follow-up when we do not get an answer, which explains why we did not call again until the next day, after which it seems she had already gotten it fixed by another company. We would be more than willing to refund the disputed amount of $60, and will additionally provide 15% off on any future services you may wish to receive. I attempted to contact the client directly to make arrangements for this refund, but was unable to reach Beverly through the numbers provided, or the one we have on file. Again, please accept my sincerest apologies for the inconvenience, and I will contact you again tomorrow to make arrangements for the refund. Thanks you, and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at the number below. Sincerely, [redacted] Office Manager [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: because they acknowledge that they shorted out the initial part that caused the other damages to my windows ignition Etc. They were not here to witness what the technician did I was here and so was my mom my car worked perfectly fine and I used on September 10th 2017 with no problems I am willing to take this issue to court because I know I will not lose out on the $900 and I am willing to let a judge rule to see who he believes. Second they did not send an experienced technician with the right tools the first time as it states on their website. If the vehicle has an aftermarket radio this is something that is well within their expertise and they should have brought up to me before beginning work on my vehicle.
Regards,
[redacted]

We apologize for the delay in issuing your refund. We will be investigating as to how your request was not completed, and issue a check for the refund on Monday, March 9. Please provide an address to which we can issue the check. Thank you

The initial failure of the programming was due to an after market radio system that interfered with the electrical system, which led to the need for less conventional methods on programming the vehichle. (The client did not initially inform the technician of this). While the technician was engaged...

in such procedures, the ECU was shorted. Pros On Call did advise the client to go to a dealership or mechanic in order to diagnose and estimate the repair, which would be covered under our service warranty. However the estimate/bill that we were sent included over $2000 of work unrelated to the issue caused by our technician (voluntary repairs). We explained to the client that we would be happy to pay for the portion for which we were responsible, which was the replacement of the ECU, amounting in a charge somewhere between $700 and $800. The client said he would accept this but still sue us for the remaining charges. This  is unacceptable by any standards, and as such we informed the client that we would only be able to pay the offered settlement if it constituted a final resolution of the dispute.

The customers statement is almost completely incorrect...
To clarify, she was told over the phone that we estimated a tech could be there in 20 minutes, but we disclosed that our estimates are only based on location and do not account for traffic and other factors. She was told that...

the ETA would be disclosed by the technician when he called.
After this point, we sent the job to one tech, who called the customers who were on site and gave them an ETA. The customers on site said not to come because the ETA was too long.
We then tried to send another technician with the same result. The customers on site said the ETA was too long so don't come out at all. 
Later, the customer who called in the job from another location called us and scolded us because she believed we simply disregarded the job... Even though this was not the case, we gladly said we would send another tech - and in this case, a Texas Premier Locksmith technician was available and in that area, so we had him stop by and complete the job
The customer submitting this complaint is extremely dishonest, as she told us over the phone that the customers on site would be paying for the service. Only after the tech confirmed the price of $99 on site with the customers present, and did the job, did they explain that they had no money and that we would have to call their daughter for payment. 
We then proceeded to call the customer for payment, and she did not answer or call us back for 2 full days!
Finally when she called back, she insisted that the service should be "complimentary" because she falsely claims that she was guaranteed an ETA of 20-25 minutes by the office. Even if this were true, which it is not, the technicians who called immediately corrected the ETA to account for all factors. 
She also said that she thougth the service should be "complimentary" because we simply left her parents out there in the heat. This is also untrue, we would have had the initial tech out their in less than 50 minutes had they not told him not to come!
In the midst of trying to explain that we cannot simply disregard the charges, as the technician does need to get paid for work that he completed, this customer hung up on me.
I called back several times and she ignored all of my calls. They were in fact from a blocked number, but I had been speaking to her from a blocked number already so she knew that it was me, and also has a number to call me back if she wished. 
I left a single voice mail saying that we would like to work out a mutually satisfying resolution, but that if her intention was to avoid paying, we would take her and/or her parents who were on site to Civil Court for theft of services.  I explained that this is not the route we would like to take, so she should call me back at one of 2 numbers to work out a resolution. 
The customer is simply a liar who does not want to pay anything for a service she ordered and received. Legally, it does not matter to what extent she is satisfied, as a company we did not do anything wrong and are fully entitled to the charges that her parents agreed to on site, before any work was done.
We will continue to call this customer in attempts to work out a resolution, as we do not only have a responsibility to our customers, but to the technicians we send work to as well. We will do everything in our power to collect the agreed upon charges on behalf of the technician.

After an attempt of some local car thief trying to take vehicle, some minor damage was done to ignition cylinder and police noted it would need to be replaced. Went online to make an appointment for the next day with Pros on call. They lost original service order (Red flag #1). Re-scheduled for early AM but after numerous calls to Pros-On-Call on tech missing appointment they assured me they were on their way. Local tech arrived over 12 hours later from set appointment time (Red flag #2). Service to replace vehicle ignition cylinder. Tech had me sign two sections of work order prior to performing job since he was running behind on that days jobs and by this time it was 9 pm. Needless to say one part was satisfactory job completion and release liability (again, prior to job being performed) (Red flag #3). They had to drill to remove cylinder. Damaged ignition housing beyond use and far worse than thief did (Red flag #4) (have proof of before and after). After going back and forth with Pros-on-call for over a month blaming me that I caused/it was existing damage (Red flag #5) even though I sent them the before and after pictures of tech's job and without the use of my vehicle (borrowing friends and family’s cars), they finally attempted to fix damage done by tech. They claimed they would not charge me for any of the repairs that would be performed to replace damaged parts. Yes, thank you for not charging me for fixing damages your company did (Red flag # 6). Never-the-less, vehicle would not start. I had no other choice than to expense repairs myself after over a month with no vehicle. Vehicle dealer confirmed that their replacement part had internal damage. So, replacement part had internal damaged even though they claim to have bought it new. When I sent them the bill for their part of the repair, they attempted to repay original service cost. Service that caused more damage than prior to calling them. Finally settled on a less than fair compromise, but was hands down the worst service experience of my life. Licensed, insured and bonded, but do everything in they can to not pay out. They had to since I took so many pics of before and after anything they did and documented all emails, chats or any other type of communication I had with them. My biggest errors are not walking away after red flag #2 and signing prior to service being completed even if tech was in a hurry. I would not recommend and all should avoid such low level of unprofessionalism.

The following is the response to the complaint. We have spoken to the client and come to a resolution. While it is not uncommon for certain lock out services to be around the client payed, we require our technicians to be upfront...

about their pricing. Our website explains how we charge a $19 service call fee to come out and inspect the vehicle, and the service itself will be a minimum of $30. We use this structure because of the variable nature of our field, and the wide variety of techniques that may be required to enter the vehicle. In this instance however, the technician did not explain the prices clearly to the client prior to doing the work, nor did he have the invoice signed. In this regard, we sincerely apologize, and will do everything in our capability to correct the situation. We have agreed to refund the disputed amount of $60, and the client has stated they are satisfied.

Locksmith showed up to my home over an hour later after he made the appointment to remove a lock. Upon initial inspection, I was told the cost would be $30. After about 3-4 minutes, the locksmith had trouble picking the lock and asked to cut it. I agreed to cutting to lock. He did not have the tool to do so. I watched him travel back and forth to his vehicle no less than 7 times to try other methods of removing the lock. No progress. At this time I was thinking that either he was inexperienced or trying to pull a fast one on me. On the 7th trip, he grabbed a tool that took him 5 minutes to remove the lock. Once he removed the lock he said that I was probably not going to like the price. He had been there over an hour at this point. Tallied up to a whopping $80. A rip off for 9 minutes of total service! Never again! Will not recommend!

Complaint ID #: [redacted] - As we explained in our initial response, there was a third party system that prevented the programming from being effective after a period of time. This Lo Jack anti-theft system is designed to disable vehicles that have been stolen or due to non-payment. Despite what the customer said in her second response, she was properly informed if the issue from the outset of the service, or we would not have done the service in the first place. - Due to nonpayment on her part, the LoJack system prevented the original key from working, as well as new keys from being programmed. Naturally, once she resumed payment, the original key began working again. This is by no fault of of the service we provided. - Despite all this, due to the customers continued complaints, we sent a technician out on two more instances to look for further solutions, free of charge. This was not warranted based on the invoice they signed, however we sought to go out of our way to resolve the issue and satisfy all parties.

Thank your for contacting us [redacted]. The following is our response: As we make clear on our calls, as well as our website, most of the time we are unable to give flat prices over the phone. This is due to the variable nature of...

our business; our technicians need to take a look at the vehicle in order to determine the locking and security mechanism, determine the tools and techniques required, and account for any potential damage that may occur during the service, for which we hold ourselves liable and would cover in full. Once the technician has taken a look, he is able to give the final quote, which the customer has the option of refusing, should he or she choose to seek a another price. The price is written out on an invoice, which the customer signs in agreement prior to us beginning the work. When he originally called in, the client was informed that there would be a $19 service call fee to come out, and the labor for the lockout would start at $30 and up, to which the client agreed. As we record all of our client calls for quality assurance, this fact can be verified. When the client called back the next day, we explained all of this to the client, but were unable to come to an understanding. We are prepared to offer a partial refund in the interest of customer satisfaction, however we cannot offer the full $50 as requested, as this does not cover our expenses. We would be more than happy to discuss this matter further and come to a satisfactory resolution. Thanks

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Regards,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
First, I did not call anyone except a company called Buda Locksmith, which turns out to not really be a company at all. Secondly, their repair tech called only once, at which time I did talk to him, but only after I had to call and pay someone else to come out. There was a piece of broken metal left in the latch, so that is part of the reason why the latch was not working properly. When I see the refund, I may be able to respond differently.
Regards,
Beverly Spencer

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: We were never told that the key programed for the van was a temporary fix to our problem of losing the orginal key. We paid $377.79 for this key this company provided us with. We had no idea that the employees of schlitterbaun would find the orginal key and that I was able to talk to them to ask them to mail it to me. As far as us owing a payment on the van has nothing to do with their key not working to start the van as I had already spoke the company I make payments to and the day their key stopped starting the van I again contacted the company I pay my payments to. They made sure that there was no reason on their end why the key wouldn't start the van. A tech from the company did come out and attempted to program another key It also kept saying bad key. My van stayed parked for a week until I received the orginal key in the mail. The first time I tried the orginal key the started and it never said bad key across the odometer. I still have the key Pros on Call programed for the van and it still doesnt start the van We were under the impression that the key they programed for us was a permanent fix to our problem as if the orginal was gone for good. I also have always thought when a locksmith makes a key for a customer it becomes a permanent solution to your key problem.  Thank you for your time.                                                 Regards: [redacted] 
Regards,[redacted]

The client's claim is misleading. The dispatcher she spoke to told her it would be a flat $19 service call fee and at least an additional $30 to unlock the car, although that price may go up depending on what is needed. The customer agreed to this starting price, and was told that the tech would...

give her the final price before doing any work, at which pint she could approve or deny the service. She not only approved of the charges, but signed an invoice for the charges before doing any work. For these reasons, as well as the fact that $85 is a fair price for an emergency lockout service, the customers complaint is invalid.

We apologize for any miscommunication; however we need to note that the customer had made attempts to open the door herself which prevented the technician from following standard procedure in the lockout. Additionally we would like to stress that all of our callers are given very a standard,...

very clear explanation of how we charge. Our office quoted the customer the service call fee and a minimum price of $30, depending on what the technician finds on site. Due to the variable nature of the factors involved, the technician always needs to come out and take a look in order to determine the final price. Customers are given the price before any work is completed, to which they can choose to agree. As such, the technician explained the charges to the customer and the customer signed the invoice agreeing to them.

While we apologize for any rudeness our technician displayed in the follow up meetings, there were initial issues with the vehicle that rendered the service temporary, which the customer was aware of prior to service. Due to non-payment on the car, the car was disabled by LoJack Recovery System. The...

technician agreed to provide a key with a back-door method to get around the LoJack system for the purpose of getting the customer home, however the security measures prevented him from being able to provide permanent programming. The technician even returned to the customer free of charge to make another attempt at programming a new key. Ultimately, the customer was completely aware that this was a temporary service and our technician went above and beyond to assist the customer in getting home.