Summer 1993
Carrier 58SXC080101GG furnace installed

Winter 1993-1994
Furnace begins failing intermittently
- Seems to fail when weather is cold, rainy or very humid, and windy
- Will not restart on its own; can usually be manually restarted after about a half hour
- Housesitters required several times per month when customer is on travel to check that heat is on
- Installer visits several times and tries numerous "solutions, " each time ensuring that the furnace is fixed

Customer is told by installer that problem is setback thermostat
- Customer replaces thermostat
- Failures continue

Winter 1994-1995
Furnace continues to fail intermittently
Housesitters still required
Installer tries several more times to fix the furnace but it continues to fail
Customer calls Carrier’s regional technical representative and leaves messages three times
Carrier's regional technical representative does not return the calls

Installer visits customer's house repeatedly, trying to identify and fix the problem by such means as:
- Adding an additional relay
- Replacing the logic/controller card (a warranty claim)
- Modifying the air intake capacity and flow

Spring 1995
Customer writes LETTER requesting that Carrier corporation extend the warranty by one year to give the installer time to troubleshoot
Carrier’s Customer Relations department denies that request in a LETTER

Winter 1995-1996
Furnace continues to fail intermittently
Housesitters still required
Installer visits house several more times, still trying to identify and fix the problem

Gas company identifies problem as condensate build-up, notes corrosion on burners, and issues "Notice of Potentially Hazardous Condition"
Customer writes corny but heartfelt letter of commendation to Washington Gas and their technician.
Customer has trouble finding housesitters capable of unscrewing the furnace cover, mopping out the excess condensate, reinstalling the cover, and restarting the furnace
Customer installs carbon monoxide detector

Installer wants to try "throwing a quarter" in the air intake because he’s heard from other installers that Carrier has told them that that is how to fix this problem (Customer later learns that Carrier did issue instructions for repairing this model of furnace which specified placing a metal disk the size of a quarter in the air intake)

Customer pressures installer, who gets Carrier's regional technical representative to look at customer's furnace in person
- Finds that some portions of the air intake system were not installed according to Carrier specifications, installer acknowledges incorrect installation
- Installation problems are supposedly corrected by installer and regional technical representative
- No paperwork describing known problems with this model of furnace is given to the customer, even though it was requested

Spring 1996
Family member of customer meets installer on the street; installer states that regional technical representative has authorized replacement of the furnace’s heat exchanger because there are known problems with the heat exchangers in this model of furnace
Customer does not receive any notification, written or verbal, from Carrier regarding known problems with this model of furnace
No one contacts the customer regarding any additional repairs; the heat exchanger is not replaced

Winter 1996-1997
Furnace fails once at end of very mild winter
Installer offers to replace heat exchanger
Customer decides that four winters of waiting for this troubleshooting approach to work is unacceptable and contacts the regional technical representative by phone, explain problems, and requests that corroded parts be replaced as well as the heat exchanger. When regional technician refuses, customer states that furnace must be replaced
- Carrier's regional technical representative refuses and loudly, angrily, and repeatedly states "Read your warranty"
- Carrier's regional technical representative says he will only authorize replacement of the heat exchanger, and only if the installer brings the old one in first
- Customer calls Carrier’s Customer Relations department
- Carrier's customer relations department says they are not responsible, that if the furnace does not work it is the installer’s problem

- Customer faxes a LETTER to Carrier’s Customer Relations department
- Carrier's customer relations department replies within *three days* with a LETTER that claims they have "researched" the situation, even though the letter contains a number of relevant inaccuracies
- Customer calls the author of Carrier's letter (this is only the second time the customer called Carrier), to discuss the situation and is immediately dismissed with, "This is the last time I will speak with you. After this you will have to talk with our lawyer."

Summer 1997
Customer writes LETTER to president of Carrier’s North American Operations
Carrier's customer relations department writes LETTER supposedly for Carrier's president of North American Operations, rejects request for new furnace or reimbursement, but offers to replace the heat exchanger

Carrier’s Customer Relations department calls customer and urges replacement of heat exchanger; customer says no, that due to the corrosion the entire unit must be replaced, and Carrier's representative says the only option is for the customer to talk with Carrier's lawyer
Carrier's Customer Relations department calls customer when customer is out of town and then follows up with another LETTER

Customer writes LETTER to the president of United Technologies, Carrier's parent company, demanding a refund
Carrier's customer relations department writes LETTER supposedly for the president of United Technologies, denying the request and encouraging replacement of the heat exchanger

Customer contacts a director of Call for Action who it turns out has also had many years of problems with a new Carrier furnace. Customer and director discuss working together if Carrier does not resolve the situation promptly. Customer decides to give Carrier one last chance to correct their problems before going to the media.

Customer posts a summary of this ordeal on several internet newsgroups and is both supported and flamed.

Customer contacts county department of consumer affairs, who try to work out an agreement between Carrier, the installer, and the customer. During one conversation, the case worker mentions that he talks with the distributor often. He also says he doesn't understand why they don't pull the faulty units instead of spending years trying to resolve problems by replacing different parts.

Customer forwards a copy of the paper trail to Senator John Warner, who contacts the FTC on customer's behalf.
Customer also forwards a copy of the paper trail to Congressman Wolf, who replies and forwards the response he gets from Carrier.

Fall 1997
Customer sends LETTER to John Lord, president of Carrier. Carrier's customer relations department writes LETTER supposedly for Mr. Lord.

Customer sends LETTER to a member of United Technologies' board of directors in the hopes of bypassing Carrier's customer relations staff and reaching the people who should be aware of these problems. That board member replies in a LETTER.

Federal Trade Commission sends LETTER to Guy Fauconneau, president of Carrier's North American Operations.

Winter 1997 - 1998
Customer contacts Carrier's ISO 9000 registrars. Carrier's performance may be in violation of clause 14.4 of the standard, which states that companies registered under ISO 9000 must reply to and solve customer complaints. Behaviors typically not exhibited by quality companies include:

- failing to notify customers when manufacturing defects are identified after the sale
- failing to perform timely and accurate investigations of product quality complaints (which clearly could not result in useful product improvement information being passed back to engineering and manufacturing)
- refusing to replace parts not included under the warranty, even if they have been damaged directly as the result of acknowledged product defects
- speaking unpleasantly and unprofessionally to customers

An unusual twist to this case is that a non-Carrier employee, the regional distributor, appears to make the final decisions regarding what equipment Carrier will and will not replace. It will be interesting to see if the quality plan under which Carrier registered accomodates such activities. Investigations and reports are promised to the customer.

Customer issues a PRESS RELEASE about how the internet can empower consumers.

It has been more than four months since the FTC contacted Carrier on this customer's behalf. Senator John Warner's office is looking into why no reply has been received.

--------------------
Note from the Customer: "All I ever wanted was a working furnace. I paid in full, gave the installer and Carrier YEARS to troubleshoot, and have been treated TERRIBLY the entire time.

I am now in the middle of my FIFTH miserable winter with that sheet metal lemon in my furnace room. The furnace has already failed several times this winter, making me late for work and forcing me to postpone important meetings with clients. Each time, I have had to explain that my Carrier furnace has a manufacturing defect and that Carrier's proposed 'solutions' have been far from acceptable. During this five year ordeal, several co-workers and clients have told me that they specifically did not buy Carrier products because of how I have been treated.

This entire ordeal has been lose-lose for everyone involved, even if they have yet to realize it. We need to revise the lemon law NOW so that no consumer ever has to endure this type of treatment from HVAC manufacturers."