Security Monster, Inc

This is not a regular client of ours, her system is NOT monitored by our Central Station, and she did NOT purchase any of her original equipment from Security MonsterWe did install her own purchased equipment back in May of This is in regards to recent service work from December of We
received a call for serviceThe timeline of events went like this:Our bill rate is $95/Hour per Technician or in this case, it was discounted to $160/Hour for techniciansDecember 12th Technicians for HoursClient's Request: Change of auto arming/disarming scheduleWork Performed: Change of auto arming/disarming scheduleInvoiced Amount: $(Discounted from $240)Invoice Date: 2/6/15Paid in Full: 3/25/15Note: Invoice delivery was late due to accounting department coming back from maternity leave.December 15th Technician for MinutesClient's Request: Auto arming/disarming schedule not working properlyWork Performed: Adjusted auto arming/disarming schedule to military timeInvoiced Amount: $0February 20th Technicians for HoursClient's Request: Front door sensor not workingWork Performed: Identified bad door sensor, need to custom order part as this is hardware NOT normally used by Security MonsterThis means a special order was made.Invoiced Amount: $(Discounted from $240)Invoice Date: 4/1/(Combined with March 6th Related Work, Total invoice of $354.00)March 6th Technician for HoursClient's Request: Replace Door Sensor and Verify Auto Arm/Disarm scheduleWork Performed: Replaced door sensor, verified auto arm/disarm schedule is programmed and workingInvoiced Amount: $($Labor, $Door Sensor)Invoice Date: 4/1/(Combined with Feb 20th Related Work, Total invoice of $354.00)April 21st 2015Client concerned about charges, stated we did NOT perform the work that we said we didWe did NOT get a request to fix any outstanding issues but in good faith we discounted the $invoice to $(Discounted $95)Client finally paid $on 5/19/2015, leaving a balance of $95.00This client was fully aware of the charges and requested service from Security Monster on her OWN hardware that she purchased outside of Security MonsterThe only hardware provided by Security Monster was the replaced door sensorI can understand her frustration with not receiving invoices on time and that was a busy time of the year for us with our accounting gal out on maternity leave, but bottom line is we were hired for services, we performed, invoiced, and the client talks about late invoicing, but she had late payments each and every time as wellWe have NEVER charged any late fees and we have discounted most labor charges at the time of invoice and as well as good faith in working with the client.The client still owes a $Balance, she has her system fixed and is working properly, all in the meantime we have NOT been paid for services renderedAnd at this time the client wants to complain and dispute the charges? What exactly is she disputing?Signed,*** ***Vice PresidentSecurity Monster*** ***

See responses listed below each question:1. I'm being charged for time for two technicians when only one was working.Response: Client was ONLY charged $95/Hour (Singled Technician Rate) except for first call on Dec. 12th which was also heavily discounted.2. I was not told that I was being charged for two technicians.Response: All clients requesting service are shared this information on the phone before we go out.3. I was not told that I was paying them for the time it took them to learn how to operate and adjust my alarm system.Response: Client was charged for service work performed ONLY4. Security Monster issued three invoices with the same invoice number, each of which is different, and two of which contain errors. When subsequent invoices are issued that are intended to be revisions of a previous invoice, they should be labeled accordingly and dated with revision dates.Response: My apologies, our accounting gal was fresh back from maternity leave. I'm happy the errors were fixed and resolved.5. None of the invoices indicate that two technicians were present and that I was charged for the work of two technicians, so it was not immediately understood that invoice amounts reflected charges for two technicians. When I inquired, I was told that the presence of two technicians was necessary because it was the middle of the day. This appears to be a logistical issue of the vendor, and I don't feel that it's reasonable for the vendor to automatically pass that expense on to me, especially when I wasn't told that it would be in advance.Response: Again, if the client reviews the actual charges invoiced, she will understand that she was NOT overcharged.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Since Security Monster installed the system, there was a reasonable expectation that their technicians would know how to make adjustments to the system.If the technicians weren't familiar with the system, it would've been better for them to indicate this to me and let me know their rate and that they would be educating themselves about the system at my expense.At no time did a company representative indicate that I was being charged for two technicians working simultaneously. In fact, one technician was simply observing a majority of the time, not participating in the work.So the bases of this complaint are as follows:1. I'm being charged for time for two technicians when only one was working.2. I was not told that I was being charged for two technicians.3. I was not told that I was paying them for the time it took them to learn how to operate and adjust my alarm system.4. Security Monster issued three invoices with the same invoice number, each of which is different, and two of which contain errors. When subsequent invoices are issued that are intended to be revisions of a previous invoice, they should be labeled accordingly and dated with revision dates.5. None of the invoices indicate that two technicians were present and that I was charged for the work of two technicians, so it was not immediately understood that invoice amounts reflected charges for two technicians. When I inquired, I was told that the presence of two technicians was necessary because it was the middle of the day. This appears to be a logistical issue of the vendor, and I don't feel that it's reasonable for the vendor to automatically pass that expense on to me, especially when I wasn't told that it would be in advance.Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:I was told none of the things the business asserts about being charged for multiple technicians.  I am done with this.  If that $95 is important enough for you I guess you can take it to court.Sincerely,[redacted]