23 May 1997

Customer's Identification of Incorrect Statements in Carrier’s Letter Dated 21 May 1997

1. "I have researched your situation and found that your dealer has pinpointed the condensation problem to extra silicone present in the secondary heat exchanger cell of your gas furnace."

Not true. There is no way the regional technical representative could know this. When the regional technical representative looked at my furnace, he found that the air intake had not been installed according to Carrier specifications. The installer corrected the air intake installation. The regional technical representative also measured the volume of air coming into the furnace and installed a piece of sheet metal with a hole in it to reduce the amount of incoming air (this is because Carrier had notified their distributors that there is a problem with the design of the air intake handling system on my furnace). At this point the regional technical representative and installer stated that they believed that the problems with my furnace had been corrected. Only later did the regional technical representative authorize replacement of my heat exchanger. He told the installer that he was doing that because he was aware that there was a problem with the model of heat exchanger in my furnace. Since the regional technical representative has not looked at my furnace again, there is no way he could know if my heat exchanger is the cause of the failures.

2. "Upon your initial contact with us of April 5, 1995, we immediately investigated the situation which included a visit to your home from our technical representative."

Not true. When I wrote on April 5, 1995, Carrier immediately (April 13, 1995) rejected my request that my warranty be extended because my furnace had never worked properly. During that winter (1994-1995), I had called Carrier’s regional technical representative three times and left messages requesting that he call me. He did not return my calls. Other than to deny my request, I saw no evidence that Carrier investigated the situation. The regional technical representative did not come out to my house until the end of the following winter (1995-1996), and he only did so when the installer requested it because I was preparing to file complaints with the Virginia and Fairfax County departments of consumer affairs. There is absolutely no way you can claim that the regional technical representative looked at my furnace as a result of your "investigation."

3. "At that time, it was found your furnace was locking out or intermittently failing due to improper installation as the system was terminated improperly at the roof."

Not true. The furnace failed again this winter – after the installation error had been corrected.

4. "I can assure you that there has been no product recall on your Carrier 58SXC080101GG gas furnace."

Half truth. While there may have been no official recall, Carrier did send out alert notices to its distributors regarding several known problems with my model of furnace. I received no notification of these known problems from Carrier, even though I requested them, and even though Carrier was aware of the continuing problems with my furnace and your regional technical representative had seen my "Notice of Potentially Hazardous Condition" from Washington Gas.

5. "We appreciate your taking the time to bring this matter to our attention."

Not true. It is unbelievable that you would make such a claim after how you have treated me.