15 September 1997

Customer's Identification of Incorrect Statements in Carrier’s Letter Dated 5 September 1997

1. "I have examined the information in great detail. ... Carrier Corporation respectfully denies your request for a new replacement furnace."

Not true. In my last letter dated 30 August 1997 I demanded a "refund" not a replacement. I am no longer willing to accept another piece of Carrier equipment as a replacement.

2. "We truly believe that the offer we have presented is equitable..."

Unbelievable. As I have stated many times, this has been an extremely expensive nightmare which has cost me hundreds of actual dollars and thousands of dollars in lost vacation time from work. There is no way replacing one part and "consider[ing]" replacing any corroded parts is anywhere close to "equitable."

3. "If the secondary heat exchanger is not replaced, you will most likely continue to experience intermittent failures."

Unconfirmed claim. No one knows if replacing the heat exchanger will stop the failures. No one even knows if the heat exchanger is deteriorating. After Carrier's regional technical representative inspected the furnace, he stated that he believed the problems were corrected. It was only later that he suspected the heat exchanger, and no one has looked at the furnace since his inspection. Also, another distributor has stated that Carrier's heat exchanger problems were on an earlier model of furnace, the SXA, not the SXC that I have. Even if a different heat exhanger would stop the intermittent failures, I would still have to find and pay reliable housesitters capable of mopping out and reassembling the furnace whenever I am away on travel until the furnace fails again or we have been through enough bad weather that I am satisfied that it is fixed and my pipes are not going to freeze.