Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Wayne Lucas Burner Service Ltd.'s headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Wayne Lucas Burner Service Ltd. has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Wayne Lucas Burner Service Ltd.

  727 The Kingsway, Unit B Peterborough, ON K9J 6W7

• 

  Wayne Lucas Burner Service Ltd.

  727 The Kingsway Unit B Peterborough, ON K9J 6W7

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:27/07/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On November 19, 2024, Wayne Lucas Burner Service Ltd. performed a furnace assessment at my property while I was out of the country, making in-person consent impossible. I had a phone discussion with Wayne Lucas prior to the assessment, but no fees were disclosed or agreed to, and no written contract was provided, violating the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, sections 10 (requiring a signed contract for services over $50) and 13 (prohibiting charges without consent). Wayne Lucas claims a fee was discussed during the call, which I dispute, and they have provided no evidence (e.g., call logs specifying fee disclosure).I received Invoice #***** for $254.25 on February 5, 2025, not on November 19, 2024, as they claim, with no prior notice or statements. Their false claim of earlier delivery violates CPA section 14(2)(14) (misrepresenting an obligation to pay). Subsequent monthly statements were vague, violating CPA Regulation 17/05, section 25. On June 3 and July 2, 2025, I sent dispute emails to Wayne Lucas ********************* citing CPA violations and demanding evidence and/or cancellation. They did not respond. Wayne Lucas referred the debt to CRM UPLEVEL who began contacting me by phone. During each call, I stated, Communicate in writing only, and disconnected. Persistent calls violate CDSA section 22(2). On July 27, 2025, I sent *** UPLEVEL a debt validation email demanding proof of a fee disclosure, contract, or invoice delivery, with no response to date. The $254.25 debt, reported to credit bureaus, is harming my credit score. I filed a dispute with ******* on July 27, 2025, requesting removal under PIPEDA, as the debt is unverified and invalid due to CPA violations.These actions, including false representations of fee disclosure and improper collection via CRM UPLEVEL constitute unfair practices under CPA section 14. I seek cancellation of Invoice #*****, cessation of all collection efforts, and removal of the debt from my credit report. See Attachments

  Business Response

  Date: 29/07/2025

  We received a call on November 19, 2024 regarding a no heat situation at a rental property for the client.  Our service fee was discussed at the time of call, as it is with all clients, particularly new clients who we have not dealt with before.  We were able to send a technician pretty quickly who determined that the furnace was obsolete and parts were no longer available.  He was billed one hour for a service call.  We provided quotes for replacement options the next day.  The quotes and the invoice for the service call were emailed to the same email address on the same day.  The customer confirmed receipt of the quotes as he called the office to discuss them.   It is reasonable to assume he also received the invoice for service as it was sent to the same email address on the same day.  Screen shots are available indicating the email with the service invoice was sent at 4:26 p.m. on November 20, 2024.

  When payment was not received after 30 days we started emailing reminder statements.  The first one went out January 6, 2025.  The next one went out February 5, 2025. The customer responded to that one indicating he did not believe our company had done any work for him and to stop sending him statements.  We reviewed the service call details and resent the original invoice.  After that statements went out monthly on March 3, April 1, May 1, and June 2.  On June 6, 2025 the account was sent to collections.  

   

   

  Business Response

  Date: 29/07/2025

  Please find attached the original work order and invoice the customer was sent for **********************.  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 29/07/2025

  Complaint: 23661606
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I have requested evidence multiple times of an invoice being sent earlier than February of 2025.  If such evidence exists, why has it not been shared when directly requested multiple times?  Why is it not included in the response to this BBB complaint?

  I do not dispute that a visit from a technician is worth money.  I maintain my dispute that fees were discussed prior to the technicians visit - they were not, and I maintain my dispute that an invoice was received prior and o February of 2025 - it was not, as evidenced by the business inability to produce evidence.  These issues directly violate multiple stipulations of the Consumer Protection Act.

  I am willing to compromise and settle this matter with Wayne Lucas Burner Service Ltd with a payment, on the condition that all collection activity cease and that the collection action is purged from my credit history. 

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* *******

  Customer Answer

  Date: 29/07/2025

  My latest response suggested a resolution, but you quickly closed the case before the business could respond.  Why?  This removes the ability to resolve the issues. Youve noted that the business addressed the concern, but they did not, as the oriental concern I raised was that they claim to have discussed fees and sent an invoice when they did neither, and that evidence of both was requested but not provided.  Their response was simply to claim the same again without providing evidence.