It's Home Electrical

<div>Initially, when **** did the site inspection, I was impressed. I told him exactly what I wanted and he agreed to supply it. Amongst others, I explained that he must install an earth spike because the municipal earth is faulty. He agreed. I was provided with a quote promptly. I signed the quote and completed the payment agreement. We agreed that the cost of the merchandise will be paid upon delivery and the balance upon issue of the Certificate of Compliance (COC). Soon after, our relationship started to deteriorate. 1. Despite promising installation within two weeks of accepting the quote, delivery of the goods occurred almost two months later, and installation a week after. 2. Despite having agreed on payment terms (in writing), **** continued to ask me to make payment. I had to refer her to the written agreement several times over. 3. Once installation commenced, it was completed quick. 4. After installation, I noticed that the earth spike was never installed. Upon inquiry, Johan told me that it is not necessary for an earth spike. I told him that we agreed and I reminded him of the fault on the municipal earth. I was then confronted with abusive allegations of being a default/reluctant debtor (despite having paid strictly in accordance with the payment agreement). 5. The cost of the earth spike was then added to the bill. If ****&nbsp; simply acknowledged that he has forgotten to add it on the original quote and that it is an additional R1900, it would not have pained me. I also never complained about the additional R1900. All I wanted was for **** to install the earth spike as I requested. What really soured the relationship was his abusive allegations that I am a default debtor/reluctant debtor. I don't see insisting on an earth spike as reluctance to pay. At no single point did I refuse payment. There was a written agreement in place as to how and when payment must be made. I kept my end of the bargain and even paid despite **** not keeping to his promises and/or to the agreement. Despite this, **** threatened to sabotage the system if I don't pay. Bear in mind that as this stage, the system was not yet fully functioning and a COC has not been issued. I merely requested him to install the earth spike. 7. Not long after the threats, the system issued failures and alarms sounded. I asked **** when they will dispatch someone to fix the system and issue a COC, she said that I must make an immediate payment or no COC will be issued. Again, breaching the agreement. 8. Wanting to end the relationship as soon as possible, I made immediate payment. The technician was dispatched and the faults on the system corrected. Most of the faults were caused by incorrect/loose wiring. Thus, if I wanted to withhold payment, I had a valid reason to withhold it. 9. What bothers me further is that a COC certificate was issued without any inspection on site. The technician sent photos of the installation to**** and he issued the COC based on that. 10. Recently, the system produced a parallel failure and the pilot light on the DB box started flickering. I reported it to ****. The response was that they don't see any faults on the app so they won't dispatch a technician to repair. Subsequent to the publication of a google review, the following transpired: 1. On 21 Aug 2023, the system suddenly stopped working. 2. **** and I talked about the review and why I am unhappy about the after-sale service. He promised to take remedial steps. 3. On 22 Aug 2023, **** and his team fixed all the hardware problems and reset the inverters and resolved the parallel error. He apologised for the deterioration of the relationship and the poor after-sales service. He also promised to improve the after-sales service delivery. 4. He further offered to refund the extra charges on my account blaming it on a miscommunication for which he apologised. The original COC was also delivered. 5. I was requested to remove the review. I amended the review to reflect the interventions since publication of the google review. On 23 Aug, I received various threats that if the review is not removed before the end of 23 Aug, legal action will be taken. Additional threats were made if the review is not removed.</div>