Complaint Review: BROWNING EQUIPMENT - BROWNING LAWN AND GARDEN EQUIPMENT BROWNING FARM EQUIPMENT BROWNING TRACTOR - PURCELLVILLE Virginia

I am still trying to deal with Browning Equipment Inc., 800 E. Main Street, Purcellville, VA 20132 but without much success. They don't respond to my letters but they have sent a vague response to the Virginia Office of Consumer Affairs who is following up on my complaint as well. A copy of my most recent letter to Ms. Erin Williams at the Virginia OCA in Richmond, Virginia follows. Thank you for your assistance. _________________ April 21, 2009 Ms. Erin Williams Dispute Resolution and Investigations Unit Commonwealth of Virginia Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services P.O. Box 1163 Richmond, VA 23218 Dear Ms. Williams: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 17 in which you included a copy of the response from Jeff Browning. I found his response to be vague in that it left many questions unanswered and that it contained statements which were either misleading or inaccurate. Unanswered were the following questions: 1. The complaint of being charged 5.2 hours for the 2.0 to 2.5 hours of time spent on our premises by two men, only one of whom worked. Shop rates were never offered as no inquiry was made since ours was an onsite job. I still do not know their shop rates. 2. Why an original shop ticket was never forwarded and why the other copy forwarded was altered for any reason. 3. Why, how and at what point in time did they came by the abundance of information with regard to the electrical problems of this generator setup when their shop ticket is sketchy at best. That ticket (copy attached) indicates 8/14/08 Roger Combs, unsure of what shed and garage wiring could cause. In Browning's elaboration on the finer points of the technical issues it becomes obvious that their knowledge succeeded, not preceded, the Clarke County Electrical Inspector's feedback which Browning, in turn, regurgitated in his note to you. 4. I still have no answer as to why Browning did not correct the conditions outlined when they were onsite if the causes were so specific and fully known. It must be assumed that on the day service was dispatched neither employee recognized the problems nor had any solution at hand, otherwise his stating that the causal factors were so completely known only affirms that they knowingly left the condition uncorrected and without explanation ! Misleading are the notions that: 1. Browning Equipment proposed the idea of placing surge suppressors on this generator as a solution. The fact of the matter is that it was not Browning's suggestion originally but rather my own which was based on personal and extensive business expertise as a computer network engineer. It does remain a point of interest, though, that they did not dissuade us from either the expense of purchasing or installing such a unit given their newly crystallized view of the causes. 2. None of our correspondence had been addressed to Jeff Browning? I'm unclear as to what he is offering that up as an excuse for. My original letter was sent to the attention of Dale Weldon. My second and third letters were mailed to the attention of Messrs. Roudabousch, Weldon and Browning in response to their own February 9 letter which was signed by the same three individuals. After receiving no response I resent that letter to all three men and the USPS receipt clearly indicates Browning's name as one of the addressees (copy attached.) Additionally, each of the consumer advocacy websites, as well as BBB, were given the same three individuals names as contacts. If his employees are not presenting him with his mail and/or if they are signing his name to their correspondence without his awareness then I'm afraid that does not indicate a professional business practice. Inaccurate are Browning's suggestion that: 1. The two circuit boards presented were absolutely ours. We were never offered any assurance by our service center that those boards came out of our unit, only that those were the only ones retained in their shop, that they were identical to the boards that our system uses and so by extension it was likely that at least one of them was ours. 2. Each of the two failed circuit boards were caused by electrical surges. This contradicts his own shop notes (copy attached) indicating that one was blown due to fuel/gas solenoid circuit. Also inaccurate, and misleading, is the statement that the Generac factory analysis determined that the failed boards were due to surges being picked up by extended wiring from the residence to a detached shed and to a further detached three car garage. First, there never was a Generac representative on our property nor is there anything to that effect in their shop notations, but that rather incredible statement suggests that the manufacturer can identify not only the cause of a board failure from the location of its blackened spot but also the point of origination of the damaging power surge within our property's various electrical circuits. All the way from Wisconsin? Interesting. I'm afraid Mr. Browning is given to some rather fantastic embellishments of the facts but, nevertheless, I will bring that to the attention of our electrical inspector since it suggests that he has missed something as he has proposed no alteration to that building whatsoever. 3. The electrical work done on this property was not performed by a licensed electrician and that that was in some way verified by the Clark County Electrical Inspector. This is not the case and it was never so much as raised as an issue by the inspector. What is absolutely accurate is that I have not yet made any payment on our account. I have been advised by Mr. Earl Jens, of Consumer Action, to not make any payment to Browning Equipment until an honest invoice is rendered. Further, his opinion is in agreement with the numerous others I have received from the various advocacy organizations as well. Finally, Jeff Browning queries who is the unethical party here? I believe, on all advice received to date, that it is none other than Browning Equipment. I'm sure it is the case that Browning finds the public nature of the consumer advocacy websites somewhat uncomfortable but there is nothing untruthful or libelous, as he has suggests, about the claims presented. Then again, if he does not understand that doubling the hours on a job may constitute fraud and that filing a malicious complaint with a County Inspector's office arising from a billing dispute may constitute a misuse of taxpayers' money and thereby be an infraction, then Im afraid Mr. Browning simply doesnt get it. At least these are the preliminary opinions of Jason Faw, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney of Loudoun County. Despite the aforementioned actions Browning has the audacity to insist that he has faithfully served the Loudoun and surrounding counties for 69 years. According to whom? It is simply not the place for a business owner to make such an assertion but rather for his customer base to bestow that particular honor. Am I to consider myself faithfully served in this transaction? It is exactly because of these actions and bad attitude that I feel a written apology is in order followed by an adjusted invoice. In summary, only my letters have sought to resolve this dispute. Even Browning Equipment's lack of response did not move me to file any complaint. My complaints were only registered after the Browning group took the first step of filing their ownmalicious complaint with the Clarke County Electrical Inspector and so I'm afraid they have brought this shower of attention on themselves. Any advice you may have for me as to where I should register these individual complaints is most appreciated as is any assistance you can offer in prodding this business to answer the questions outlined. Sincerely yours, Nancy Mumm