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:04/30/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore 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.

  ***** from Kdar energy solutions did not produce a fair evaluation for ComEd energy solutions program. We contacted ***** because we knew he was able to work with the ComEd business energy efficiency program. What we did not know is that he does not follow the guidelines that come along with the privilege of being a contractor. He did not come in person to evaluate the space. He simply asked me how may light fixtures. The rebate depends on what type of fixtures you replace and therefore we were not given a fair and accurate estimation. We did not understand this until we contacted ComEd for guidance. If we simply wanted a contractor, then we would not have chosen Kdar energy solutions. Comed has conducted an investigation based on his business practices and we are waiting for them to come onsite to verify the work. In the meantime, ***** has contacted us non stop for the remaining amount of the contract. We do not feel that he gave us a fair estimate from comed and are reluctant to pay the remaining balance. The comed representative stated that Kdar was supposed to send pictures of the fixtures once replaced to verify the work and they did not comply. They also did not replace the exit signs or the thermostat simply because his employee refused to do the work. We asked him to adjust the invoice and he refused to do so. He wanted to collect this payment from Comed but did not want to fulfill the contract. Unfortunately ***** thinks this is fair and just and continues to harass us for payment.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/10/2024

  We restated customer the issues below for clarity.
  Unfair Evaluation:
  ***** did not conduct an in-person evaluation of the space, which is essential for accurate estimates.
  Instead, he simply asked about the number of light fixtures without considering the type of fixtures being replaced.
  As a result, the estimation provided was not fair or accurate.
  Guideline Non-Compliance:
  Contractors working with ComEds business energy efficiency program must adhere to specific guidelines.
  Unfortunately, ***** did not follow these guidelines, which affected the quality of the evaluation.
  Investigation by ComEd:
  ComEd has initiated an investigation into Kdar Energy Solutions based on their business practices.
  They are expected to verify the work onsite to ensure compliance.
  Persistent Payment Requests:
  Despite the issues, ***** continues to request payment for the remaining contract amount.
  We do not feel that he gave us a fair estimate from comed and are reluctant to pay the remaining balance.
  Missing Verification Photos:
  Kdar was supposed to send pictures of the replaced fixtures to ComEd for verification.
  Unfortunately, they did not comply, which raises further concerns.
  Unfulfilled Contractual Obligations:
  Exit signs and the thermostat were not replaced because an employee refused to do the work.
  ****** refusal to adjust the invoice and his attempt to collect payment without fulfilling the contract are problematic.
  Harassment:
  We consider Davids continuous contact for payment as harassment which adds to the stress of the situation.
  
  Kdars Response (in red below)
  Unfair Evaluation:
  ***** did not conduct an in-person evaluation of the space, which is essential for accurate estimates.
  We did another project for the customer at the same complex which we completed in early ************************************** person at that time. The customer reached out to us in February 2024 to install the current project.
  Instead, he simply asked about the number of light fixtures without considering the type of fixtures being replaced.
  We had (before upgrade) pictures and counts of the fixtures which were standard 2x4 troffers so the energy savings and incentive rebate from the upgrade was easy to determine. Our installers took photos that verified the baseline wattage during installation. The project scope, existing and proposed fixture type and costs were explained clearly in the agreed upon proposal, signed Comprehensive assessment and signed service agreement.
  As a result, the estimation provided was not fair or accurate.
  We disagree with this statement based on our response above
  Guideline Non-Compliance:
  Contractors working with ComEds business energy efficiency program must adhere to specific guidelines.
  Unfortunately, ***** did not follow these guidelines, which affected the quality of the evaluation.
  The customer merely makes a claim without any evidence. It is up to ComEd, not the customer, to complete an investigation and determine the outcome. Per point 3 below, the customer already initiated such an investigation. On April 22, the ComEd representative sent an email to the customer confirming the calculations and final invoice were accurate.
  Investigation by ComEd:
  ComEd has initiated an investigation into Kdar Energy Solutions based on their business practices.
  ComEd launched an investigation at the customers request and not because of our business practices. ComEds representative determined our assessment and final invoice to be accurate in an email directly to the customer on April 10.
  They are expected to verify the work onsite to ensure compliance.
  ComEds onsite inspection took place May 3.
  Persistent Payment Requests:
  Despite the issues, ***** continues to request payment for the remaining contract amount.
  The signed service agreement calls for final payment within 7 days of completion. We fulfilled our contractual obligation and adjusted for the changes which resulted in the cost of the contract going up. We adjusted the price so that it matched the original contract price. ComEds agreed that our calculations were accurate. We do not consider it unreasonable to request final payment.
  We do not feel that he gave us a fair estimate from ComEd and are reluctant to pay the remaining balance.
  We addressed this point in response (e) above ComEds representative determined our assessment and final invoice to be accurate in an email directly to the customer on April 10. There is a contractual obligation to pay based on signed agreements.
  Missing Verification Photos:
  Kdar was supposed to send pictures of the replaced fixtures to ComEd for verification.
  Unfortunately, they did not comply, which raises further concerns.
  Per response (d) above, the customer merely makes a claim without any evidence. It is up to ComEd, not the customer, to complete an investigation and determine the outcome. Per point 3 above, the customer has already initiated such an investigation.
  Unfulfilled Contractual Obligations:
  Exit signs and the thermostat were not replaced because an employee refused to do the work.
  During the walkthrough with the installer on the day of the install prior to commencement of the project, the existing thermostat was observed not mounted on the wall, was hanging by its wire and missing a c-wire which is required for a smart thermostat install. As a result, thermostat installation was not possible that day and it required an installation on a different day with additional labor and cost. The customer acknowledged this in a text on the same day and suggested we could remove the thermostat and refund the cost which we did. The Program rules do not allow self-installation of the thermostat so we removed the thermostat install from the project scope
  ****** refusal to adjust the invoice and his attempt to collect payment without fulfilling the contract are problematic.
  We adjusted the invoice for both the removal of the thermostat and the exit signs as well as the additional cost of an additional fixture replacement. The calculation of the final invoice was in the April 10 email and the ComEd representative confirmed the calculations and final invoice were fair and accurate in an April 22 email to the customer.
  Harassment:
  Davids continuous contact for payment adds to the stress of the situation.
  We disagree that requesting payment under a contractual obligation is considered harassment.
  Regarding the responses above, Kdar Energy Services always acted in a courteous and professional manner.
  
  The was the customers second project and they approached our company to complete the install. They understood the program rules,  had no pressure to sign and had opportunity prior to signing to do due diligence as to fairness and pricing.
  We completed the project on March 5 and after several requests for final payment, a formal demand for payment was sent on April 30. The customer sent an email on April 30 the day they received the formal payment demand and filed BBB complaint the next day. It is curious that after our first request for final payment the customer opened an investigation with ComEd and after our formal demand for final payment they filed a BBB complaint.
  The billing adjustment remedy the customer requested has already been done. Based on our responses above, it is unreasonable to expect us to waive final payment due under the signed agreement.We request that the customer pay us for the work performed to prevent us seeking other methods for recovery. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/15/2024

   
  Complaint: 21647717
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Kdar does not follow the program guidelines. They are deceptive and do not have the best interest of the business in mind.  They should have been present in person to provide a fair evaluation and should have  present during final installation.  We were not asked if the work was satisfactory and the program requires photos of the old fixtures for payment from ComEd.  We cannot determine if his pricing is consistent with the program based on his poor business practices and we signed the contract with the assumption he was following the program guidelines.  If we had any information on his practices previously, we would never have signed the contract.  Kdar should be removed from the program because they are deceptive and in the program simply for their own profitability. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************************

  Business Response

  Date: 05/16/2024

  Customer already made these claims in the initial complaint to BBB and the Kdar has already addressed all of them. (see below for point by point claim and response)  
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Kdar does not follow the program guidelines. (see point 2 of customer initial complaint and our response point d _extract included below)
  The customer merely makes a claim without any evidence. It is up to ComEd, not the customer, to complete an investigation and determine the outcome. Per point 3 below, the customer already initiated such an investigation. On April 22, the ComEd representative sent an email to the customer confirming the calculations and final invoice were accurate.
  They are deceptive and do not have the best interest of the business in mind. They should have been present in person to provide a fair evaluation and should have  present during final installation. (see point 1 of customer initial complaint and our responses point a, b and c _extract included below)
  
  Unfair Evaluation:
  ***** did not conduct an in-person evaluation of the space, which is essential for accurate estimates.
  We did another project for the customer at the same complex which we completed in early ************************************** person at that time. The customer reached out to us in February 2024 to install the current project.
  
  Instead, he simply asked about the number of light fixtures without considering the type of fixtures being replaced.
  
  
  As a result, the estimation provided was not fair or accurate.
  
  We were not asked if the work was satisfactory and the program requires photos of the old fixtures for payment from ComEd. This was already addressed in customers initial complaint ( points ***** and our responses d, e and i).
  Customer provides no evidence of any wrongdoing by Kdar. Program rules and compliance are between the contractor and program administrators, not with the customer. As a result of the customers complaint,the utility initiated and completed an investigation in Kdar compliance with program guidelines. The results of the investigation were communicated by the utility to both the customer and ********************** on April 22, 2024. 
  
  We cannot determine if his pricing is consistent with the program based on his poor business practices and we signed the contract with the assumption he was following the program guidelines. (see point 1 of customer initial complaint and our responses point a, b and c _extract included below)
  
  
  Unfair Evaluation:
  ***** did not conduct an in-person evaluation of the space, which is essential for accurate estimates.
  
  We did another project for the customer at the same complex which we completed in early ************************************** person at that time. The customer reached out to us in February 2024 to install the current project.
  We had (before upgrade) pictures and counts of the fixtures which were standard 2x4 troffers so the energy savings and incentive rebate from the upgrade was easy to determine. Our installers took photos that verified the baseline wattage during installation. The project scope, existing and proposed fixture type and costs were explained clearly in the agreed upon proposal, signed Comprehensive assessment and signed service agreement.
  We disagree with this statement based on our response above
  The customer merely makes a claim without any evidence. It is up to ComEd, not the customer, to complete an investigation and determine the outcome. Per point 3 below, the customer already initiated such an investigation. On April 22, the ComEd representative sent an email to the customer confirming the calculations and final invoice were accurate.
  Instead, he simply asked about the number of light fixtures without considering the type of fixtures being replaced.
  We had (before upgrade) pictures and counts of the fixtures which were standard 2x4 troffers so the energy savings and incentive rebate from the upgrade was easy to determine. Our installers took photos that verified the baseline wattage during installation. The project scope, existing and proposed fixture type and costs were explained clearly in the agreed upon proposal, signed Comprehensive assessment and signed service agreement.
  As a result, the estimation provided was not fair or accurate.
  We disagree with this statement based on our response above
  If we had any information on his practices previously, we would never have signed the contract.  Kdar should be removed from the program because they are deceptive and in the program simply for their own profitability.  
  
  Customer provides no evidence of any wrongdoing by Kdar. The utilities investigation agreed the Kdars pricing was accurate. The signed contract is accurate and legally binding. Customer makes their claims without any evidence and therefore without merit. 
  
  We request that BBB find in favor of Kdar, close this claim, and request that the customer pay us for the work performed.