Complaints

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:06/05/2025

  Type:Service or Repair 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.

  Dear Better Business Bureau,
  
  Thank you for forwarding B&J Refrigeration’s response to my complaint. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the record and respond to several factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations made in their reply.
  
  ---
  
  1. Ductwork Concerns Were Raised – And Dismissed
  
  Contrary to B&J’s claim, I did raise concerns regarding ductwork and system sizing prior to installation. I asked repeatedly whether our ductwork could support a new 5-ton system. My concerns were either brushed off or dismissed. At no point did B&J perform an inspection of the existing ductwork before installing the new unit, nor did they measure airflow or verify the return size in accordance with ACCA Manual D requirements.
  
  In fact, I specifically requested a duct inspection by text message on February 17, 2025. No duct inspection was ever performed, and no airflow or pressure testing was conducted either before or during the installation process. I will upload screenshots of those texts to support this fact and demonstrate that B&J’s claim — that I never mentioned duct concerns — is false and misleading.
  
  It is not the homeowner’s responsibility to diagnose duct limitations—that is the role of the licensed contractor, particularly when installing a high-capacity HVAC system that requires substantial airflow.
  

  
  
  ---
  
  2. The Load Calculation Was Performed After Installation, Not Before
  
  The initial proposal for a 5-ton system was based on the outdated "1 ton per 400 square feet" rule, not on a valid Manual J load calculation. B&J only performed a load calculation after I raised performance concerns and escalated the issue by visiting their office in person. This sequence of events is well documented.
  
  As a homeowner, I reasonably relied on the professional knowledge and licensure of B&J to follow ACCA-approved practices, including proper Manual J (load), Manual D (duct design), and Manual S (equipment selection) procedures. These standards are technical and not commonly known by the average consumer. I was not provided with this information prior to installation. Only after installation issues emerged did I begin researching what had gone wrong. It became clear that B&J had skipped critical steps and committed multiple installation violations that should never have occurred under a competent and compliant process.
  
  Moreover, when B&J eventually produced a Manual J, it included suspiciously inflated numbers that appeared intended to retroactively justify their 5-ton recommendation. The infiltration rate was exaggerated far beyond what would be found in a reasonably sealed home — something that could have been validated with a blower door test, which they never performed. Additionally, the Manual J used inflated or questionable assumptions for duct losses, window area and solar gain, and kitchen loads. These inflated values gave the false appearance of a larger cooling load, skewing the results in favor of an oversized system.
  
  
  ---
  
  3. The “Like-for-Like” Justification Is Not Supported by ACCA Standards
  
  B&J’s repeated claim that this was merely a “like-for-like” replacement does not excuse their failure to follow required procedures.
  
  According to ACCA industry standards:
  
  Manual S – Section 1-3 states:
  
  > “Contractors should not assume the previous system was correctly sized.”
  Replacing equipment with the same tonnage without validation risks significant performance errors.
  
  
  
  Manual J – Section 1-10 states:
  
  > “A load calculation shall be performed any time a system is installed, replaced, or changed, unless reliable prior documentation is available and matches the home’s current configuration.”
  
  
  
  Manual D – Section 1-3 states:
  
  > “The total effective length, fitting types, and duct sizes must be evaluated to ensure the system can deliver required airflow without excessive pressure drop.”

  
  “Duct system evaluation is required when new equipment is selected to ensure that system static pressure and airflow are within acceptable limits.”
  
  
  
  ACCA Standard 5 QI – Section 4.1.1 states:
  
  > “A heating and cooling load calculation using Manual J or equivalent must be completed before equipment is selected and installed. This includes replacement systems.”

  
  “The contractor shall not use equipment selection based solely on the nameplate data of the existing equipment.”
  
  These are not optional best practices—they are minimum industry standards for ethical and safe installation. “Like-for-like” is not a free pass to ignore Manual J, D, or S. B&J was obligated to verify whether my existing duct system could support a 5-ton unit. They did not.
  
  ---
  
  4. Blower Door Test Comment Is Misleading
  
  I never claimed that a blower door test alone would reveal duct capacity. This is a red herring. However, a blower door test would have revealed the home’s true infiltration rate, which was a major driver in B&J’s inflated load calculation. Their decision to skip the test and instead assign high default leakage values calls into question the credibility of their Manual J altogether.
  
  ---
  
  5. Defamatory Language and False Accusations
  
  The company’s assertion that I am trying to get a “free system” is both inappropriate and offensive. I have not asked for a “free” unit; I have sought a fair, professional resolution to a poorly executed installation that is impacting the comfort and efficiency of our home. It is precisely this kind of accusation that discourages homeowners from holding contractors accountable.
  
  ---
  
  6. The Offer to Remove the System Was Not a Resolution
  
  I did not accept B&J’s offer to remove the system minus a $1,650 deduction, as it failed to address:
  
  The violation of industry standards during installation
  
  The ductwork capacity mismatch
  
  The cost burden this places on my household
  
  The lack of accountability for the damage caused
  
  My response was not acceptance. It was a signal that we were clearly still far from resolution, especially since a Registrar of Contractors job site visit is already scheduled, and I am waiting for their findings.
  
  
  ---
  
  7. B&J’s Defense Relies on Customer Ignorance of Industry Standards
  
  B&J’s entire position relies on the assumption that most customers do not understand ACCA procedures and will not ask the right questions. Their narrative places the burden on the homeowner to pre-identify duct limitations, verify system sizing, and somehow confirm that a 5-ton unit was appropriate—despite this being the contractor’s legal and professional duty.
  
  Their defense also reveals a troubling pattern: when issues were raised, rather than acknowledging their oversight, B&J misrepresented technical standards, dismissed valid concerns, and pivoted to deflection. This is only effective when the homeowner lacks knowledge of Manual J, Manual D, and Manual S requirements.
  
  I had to conduct extensive research after the installation to discover how seriously B&J deviated from accepted practices. Their response shows that they never expected to be held accountable—because they assumed I wouldn’t know what to look for.
  
  ---
  
  Final Note:
  
  B&J failed to perform a basic part of their job: ensuring that the system they installed was properly sized and matched to the home’s ductwork. I had every reason to expect a licensed HVAC contractor to follow ACCA standards. Their refusal to take responsibility, their public misrepresentation of the facts, and their personal attacks speak volumes.
  
  I remain open to a fair and professional resolution. However, based on the facts above, I respectfully ask that this complaint remain unresolved until such time that B&J Refrigeration acknowledges their role in this issue and provides corrective action that aligns with ACCA Manual J, D, and S standards.
  
  Sincerely,
  Don Boskovski

  Their own Manual J shows our ducts support 1,386 CFM, but they installed a unit that pushes 1,760 CFM, ignoring both airflow limits and industry standards.
  
  This installation violates industry guidelines under Manual D (duct sizing) and Manual S (equipment selection)—which require matching actual loads and airflow limits.
  
  The result is poor comfort, short cycling, and inefficient operation, especially during mild weather when the system constantly shuts off.
  
  We ask that B & J replace the system with a correctly sized 3.5–4 ton unit or upgrade the ductwork to safely accommodate 1,760 CFM—at no additional cost to us.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/06/2025

  We are currently in conversations with the homeowner.  We stand by our load calculations which were done by three of our NATE certified technicians.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/12/2025

  Dear
  Better Business Bureau,
  
  Upon review of Mr. Bovoski’s reply, we
  stand by our load calculations.  Also, the unit we were asked to replace
  was also a 5-ton unit, which pushed the same amount of air through his
  undersized ductwork.  We were simply doing a like sized replacement per
  his desires, and he never mentioned that he had undersized ductwork, but he
  still agreed to replace his old unit with a new 5-ton system.  Our company
  has no control over the undersized duct work, nor were we asked to replace
  it.  He also references the lack of a blower door test and that if one
  were done, this would have solved the issues at hand.  That is not the
  case.  A blower door test will not tell what a duct system can
  handle.  It wasn’t until he got a second load calculation that he told us
  about his ductwork issue.  Again, there was no reason for us to check duct
  work as he wanted a similar sized system. 
  
  We don’t want this to go on any longer,
  so we informed Mr. Bovoski that we would remove the unit from his home minus
  $1,650 (permit cost and other non-refundables).  His response was “fine,
  we’ll deal with it later."  He ended the conversation there and we
  are still at an impasse waiting on his reply.  This is more than we would
  do for any customer as we would like to conclude working for Mr. Bovoski asap.
  We strongly feel that he is looking for a way to get us to give him a free system. 
  In conclusion, he was a very informed customer and knew what he was purchasing,
  which was a like sized system.