Complaint Review: Rayne of San Jose - San Jose California

Taken from Wikipedia: "A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members."

Unfortunately, sometimes managers and executives can use the mechanisms available to a corporation to evade personal responsibility and legal accountability.   Ranye Dealership Corporation is structured in such a way that managers are allowed to easily subvert industry standards and practices, while reporting to higher levels in the company that jobs are being completed in an accepted manner. 

Whether this is condoned at the executive level is not clear, but it is obvious that these managerial practices often result in bonuses and perhaps promotions.  At worst, a corporate culture of corruption and law breaking is being promoted at the very highest levels.  At best, a lack of accountability is allowing questionable and shady practices to continue unchecked. 

Taken from the email response from the CFO of Rayne Dealership Corporation which was received on Dec 15, 2011: "... As a result of your letter we have started an internal investigation." 

The fact that an internal investigation seems to have had no impact on Mr Hamblet suggests either a lack of managerial accountability or a failure of proper investigative practices.  I conclude this based on that fact that I was witness to the aforementioned unethical practices and that, after reporting them, I was never contacted by anyone responsible for handling the alleged internal investigation.

Just to get one fact straight: There is only one GM in San Jose now.

Now on to you:
You seem to know why it's important to have a hose bib post PE or auto softener from a technician standpoint.  So please explain why the job was done improperly at a vast swath of locations.  I suspect it was the failure of past management to give a d**n past raking-in another dollar.  As you said, Steve was a GM back in '02.  By the time I was working there (late '08 through mid '11) the problem had not been corrected for quite a few and the only time correction was deemed necessary was when a customer complained.  Soft water hose bibs were only mandated for new installs if the customer requested it.  Otherwise, some technicians deemed it too much of a hassle to spend the extra couple of minutes installing them. 

In an unrelated though related story, I anchored the RO systems for a HUGE swath of RoSJ's long-term RO rental customers.  Indeed anchoring RO systems tends to prevent leaks, but I was the only technician at that branch to insist on anchoring and/or untangling all RO systems.  The other guys would simply change the filters and run.  Also, I was the only technician with the ability to convert Clear and Pure RO rental customers requiring short-term service periods of 3-9 months to an annual service period without swapping-out the unit.  No sense in me describing the procedure as you already know everything about water service, right? 

Sounds like you were not paying attention as the vast majority of RoSJ's polyacrylic weak acid cation resin bed was fouled due to chlorine.  It is (was) Steve's responsibility to handle that problem and I have a hard time buying any claim that he is (was) 'unaware' considering the number of complaints I heard from the service technicians, the night crew, and flooding-in from customers.  I fail to understand how resizing a customer's application on the spot applies to the problem of resin fines in the customer's plumbing due to the decomposing resin.  What the hell are you rebutting?

Your mention of taking a fouled tank out of service is very ambiguous.  Customers could receive service or a replacement tank if they called to complain about any of the following conditions:  receiving a dead tank, receiving a shot of discoloration or resin in lines, low water flow/pressure, or a leak.  If the tank its self had a problem, it was marked for service and placed out of the rotation at the shop.  Tanks with missing seals or plugged/broken upper or lower distributors eventually had the offending piece replaced and were put back into the rotation.  During my employ it was common for route trucks to be shorted a few tanks due to either a shortage of resin or a shortage of PE tanks.  Did you know that RoSJ still has many galvanized PE tanks in their rotation?  If you didn't know that, perhaps that is part of the reason you still defend that branch.

If you were the one doing the resin rebeds, you would understand that Steve did not provide ANY new resin for rebedding except for the most extreme of circumstances -- yes, I have been quite redundant in my mention of customers being misled into believing that their rebed resin was new though nearly all of it was in such sad shape they would be lucky if their softener worked for four years after a rebed.  If indeed decomposing resin was put to use to save customers money, then why were many of them told it was new?  Let me be clear, I do know that San Jose used recycled resin for most customer rebeds.  New resin was used almost exclusively for newly purchased softeners.  I blabbed about the 'used resin' to a customer within my first three or so months as a service technician.  That event, which made Steve very angry, led to the first 'new resin' rebed of a softener during my employ.

My prior report referenced the Linx system as a Leax hazard.  In clarification, the major problem begins with its lack of a single manifold handling its internal water pathways.  In the spirit of the Rayne Supreme and Rayne Tap III, the Linx utilizes multiple separate components strung-together via poly tubing.  Breaking that spirit, the pathways are secured via quick-connect fittings instead of compression fittings.  Improper usage of those fittings has been the primary cause of internal leaks, whether from improper insertion of the tubing or from the natural bend of the tubing yielding a force oriented such that the o-ring is unable to maintain a water-tight seal. 

I offer a partial count of quick-connect fittings to demonstrate the problem.  As I don't have a Linx to disassemble, the number shall be far from exact.  The front two filters within the Linx necessitate at least 6 internal quick-connect fittings.  At the back of the unit are an additional 3 internal quick-connect fittings (raw water fitting already counted).  Adding those quick-connect fittings to the four external quick-connect fittings provides a minimum of 13 places the Linx can leak.  Indeed the device utilizes a greater number of quick-connect fittings than that.  If you choose to rebut, please include the actual number of internal and external quick-connect fittings utilized in a Linx system.
 
Indeed I have looked at what almost every drinking water system manufacturer uses.  Many do not have a double-digit number of quick-connect fittings stranding all of their different pieces together.  The Rayne Pure has 3 quick-connect fittings on a single-piece manifold to secure poly tubing for the source, drain and product water.  The Rayne Clear and many of the competitors in the market have 4 quick-connect fittings, the fourth one for the tank line. 

Indeed I did not add into the count any additional fittings utilized for the faucet, tank, tee for a refrigerator line, inline filter, etc., for any described devices as most of those connections would be necessitated regardless of the system being installed.  My opinion is that adding more quick-connect fittings to a system is a terrible thing as, over time, their potential to leak increases far faster and much more absolutely than compression fittings.  Specialized molded pieces, such as the Rayne Clear manifold, effectively reduces both the overall number of potential leak points and the time needed to service the unit once the o-rings are old enough to warrant changing.

You describe my rant as "inaccurate testimony" with the ability to "demonstrate my total lack of knowledge in the area of water treatment.".  However, your clumsy, misguided personal attacks have been riddled with ambiguity and unfounded claims.  For instance, your insistence that usage of John Guest fittings is commonplace within RO systems is a very inaccurate statement.  John Guest is a brand.  If memory serves me, the quick-connect fittings within the Linx indeed utilize the same o-rings as John Guest fittings, but are not John Guest brand.  Also, the Rayne Clear and Rayne Pure do not utilize the John Guest brand either.  In fact, Rayne Clear and Rayne Pure have Parker/Parflex fittings on their manifolds which require an entirely different o-ring than John Guest. 

Parker/Parflex o-rings have a smaller inner diameter than John Guest o-rings, but both have a nearly identical outer diameter.  Thus, the Parker/Parflex o-ring is beefier than the replacement o-rings for John Guest fittings.  Using a John Guest replacement o-ring in a Parker/Parflex fitting is, in my opinion, an extremely stupid thing to do.  The slightest scratch to the tubing or inside of the fitting or the slightest bit of force on the line at the fitting can cause a leak.  However, using Parker/Parflex o-rings in John Guest fittings makes for a tighter, more reliable seal.  It took me a long time to convince Steve to order the right o-rings.  He can tell you where to order the correct part.  In fact, to prevent a Linx from becoming a Leax, swap-out the o-rings to Parker/Parflex. 

You have caused me to unnecessarily and/or redundantly express concepts which have already been addressed in my email correspondence to the owner of Rayne Dealership Corporation.  Please acquire the full set of that email correspondence via Mr. Vessy, Mr. Jessen, Mr Hamblet, etc.  You will find in said documents thorough description of specific events in enough detail to warrant serious policy changes in the way the San Jose branch is run.  Seriously - acquire the email and read it.  Afterward you may feel compelled to question the corporation's apparent lack of ethics.  Despite the email, the corporation chose to stand by their man.  Thus, you have little choice but to swim in the soup they made for you.

The task of sifting through the quagmire of ignorance and verbal sewage that you are compelled to spew upon this forum bores me.  Also, I fear that irreparable damage to your ego may occur if you decide to maintain your current strategy.  If indeed you must rebut, please make some attempt to sound like you are indeed an educated individual by expressing concepts that have actual substance and foundation, preferably derived from the above mentioned email.

Sincerely,
+n+(? ?)+n+

P.S.  The usage of John Guest fittings as a permanent solution is ridiculous.  In my experience, a guest that sticks around too long is a bum that got too comfortable.

Just to get one fact straight: Steve was one of the GMs in San Jose in '02.  

Now on to you:
You give the impression you were a service technician and/or route drive and mention putting soft water hose bibs for PE routes, staining issues, and resin rebeds.  Do you know why it's important to have a hose bib post PE or auto softener from a technician standpoint? So you can do you job properly.  Diagnose problems, test for soft water, and pressure drop against specifications. 

Sounds like either water quality changed, customer occupancy changed, or from time-to-time a tank's resin fouled due to chlorine.  It is (was) your responsibility to report problems like those mentioned to the customer, resize the application on the spot, radio in for assistance if you could not calculate the math.  I know of route drivers at that dealership and at other water treatment operations in the Bay Area who would take a PE tank out of service when they fouled. If you couldn't do that, perhaps that was the reason why you're no longer there.

If you were the one doing the resin rebeds, you only had to refer to the work order to see if it called for new or recycled resin - yes, companies use recycled resin from outside sources to save customers money.  Let me be clear, I do not know if San Jose uses recycled resin or new for customers.  I only use new resin for my operation.  You should have known what your company used and confirmed it with your service calls with each customer.  

Your prior report referenced the LINX system tubing and "O" rings for seals and how, in your opinion, it's a problem.  Have you looked at what almost every drinking water system manufacturer uses?  Yes, John Guest fittings with collets & "O" rings to secure poly tubing.  The AC 30 for Culligan, the WATTS Premier sold at COSTCO, the Puronics MICROMAX 6500... the list goes on.

At this point, I would rather have you leave your inaccurate testimony on all these sites as they demonstrate your total lack of knowledge in the area of water treatment.  You simply need to find a job that does not require as much responsibility. 

The first thing done in that rebuttal was to run to the rescue of Steve Hamblet's character.  He may have been a straight-shooter as the regional macro-manager of Rayne Corporation, but something surely changed when he settled into the San Jose branch office General micro-manager position.  You did not work for him during such time.

When this thing goes to court, I will not be the only witness and Steve WILL be found guilty of illegal time sheet manipulation and perhaps some other offenses as well.  Also, his favorite employee will be facing Grand Theft charges by me and possibly by Rayne Dealership Corporation.  Considering the potential outcome regarding Rayne of San Jose inclusive of more damage to the company's reputation than I care to inflict, you may wish to call your old buddy Steve and ask him why he has not filed those charges himself.

Also brought up was that I mentioned a potentially wrong testing procedure, though I was not specific.  The resin that made-up the bulk of RoSJ's resin bed during the period of my employ was industrially-used to the point of massive decay.  For customers with automatic softeners and PE tanks I often noticed a build up of a reddish brown particulate debris in the toilet tanks, water heaters, and less often in RO prefilter housings.  In fact, PE customers often complained of a shot of discolored water when the tank was changed. 

For PE customers, the vibration of the route truck frequently caused the first shot of water from PE tanks be discolored with eroded fines.  I was ordered to install hose bibs to allow the route drivers to flush PE tanks to quell the complaints of many customers.  Though it was rare for an automatic softener rental customer to even notice the problem, I suspected initial usage after a regeneration as the culprit causing the buildup in their plumbing. 


The procedure theorized (which may prove wrong) was to do a makeshift regeneration of any reddish brown debris collected from toilet tanks and/or the water heater at the San Jose Crime Lab as a means of determining if farther investigation was necessary.   In hindsight, I realize that such fine particulate may actually be broken-down to a point that it no longer acts as ion exchange resin.  If that is the case, the water softener installed at the San Jose Crime Lab would require farther investigation via twisting-off the valve and taking a resin sample. 


My knowledge regarding the ripoff of the San Jose Crime Lab indeed came about by way of hearsay information.  If you care to pay a third-party to turn that hearsay into evidence to be presented for a court of law, please do so with my blessing.  Steve's favorite employee, let's call him Mr Favorite, told me of the above mentioned chicanery back when I assumed Mr Favorite and I to be friends.  Mr Favorite told me during a time that he had been borrowing money from me, though before his debt climbed over $1000.  It was also before Mr Favorite told Steve he did not like working with me and that he wanted Steve to replace him.  That action cost me my job.  I can only speculate that Mr Favorite did this to me because he did not like the prospect of repaying his debt.


Mr Favorite's involvement in the San Jose Crime Lab scandal makes him the LAST person who should be trusted with taking a resin sample from that softener.  Said employee was also an accomplished employee thief during the time of my employ.  Service technicians usually fly alone so most of his ill deeds shall remain a secret.  However, I learned that Mr Favorite sold a used RXD softener for $400, under the table, to an FBI employee living in the west side of the Communication Hill neighborhood.  As far as my understanding of the law is concerned, that single act should be enough to prosecute him for Grand Theft.  Does this discredit the hearsay?  No.  Only a sample of resin can do that.


Proving these things through the proper legal channels would take more money than I care to spend.  The ONLY error I made in this report was saying "ALL rebed resin before 2012 was so heavily damaged from industrial use..."  I should have said "Almost all rebed resin before August 2011 was so heavily damaged from industrial use..."  The fact is that there were 2-3 customers who received new resin in their rebedded softener during my 2.75 year employ. 


If you care to prove or disprove the information I have presented, that is entirely up to you.  Be warned: you will be sorely disappointed.  All of the facts, inclusive of the proper time frame, exist in my email correspondence with Rayne Corporation, something which may have been sent to someone at your organization around February 17, 2012.  Speaking of facts, you failed to mention 'rebedding with garbage resin' in the rebuttal.  Your silence regarding that matter speaks volumes.


The claim that I am guilty of libel by accusing other branches of behaving as unethically as Rayne Dealership Corporation's San Jose branch office is utter nonsense.  I shall clarify the following statement: "If they condone it here, why would they not condone defrauding customers elsewhere?"  They is a reference to the upper management of Rayne Dealership Corporation.  Here is a reference to "at Rayne Dealership Corporation's San Jose branch office under direction of Steve Hamblet."  Taken from Wikipedia: "Libel is a false, malicious statement published in mainstream media (i.e. on the internet, in a magazine, etc.)."  I have committed no such crime.


What I have done is to provide hearsay that was clearly labeled as hearsay, some opinions of mine, as well as the truth to the best of my knowledge.  In fact, I swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the great state of Arizona, wherein exclusive jurisdiction is held regarding the content of this forum, that everything I have said regarding Rayne Dealership Corporation's San Jose branch office and its representatives on this forum as well as in my email communication with Rayne Dealership Corporation is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, excepting for my personal information as given within the initial report on this forum as provision of such information inclusive of my name and/or email for public viewing is a clear violation of the rules of this forum.


Indeed I did say "If it flies the Rayne flag, don't trust it."  That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.  Supporting information was also provided to justify my opinion as well as reference to this site which contains another tiny piece of the story.  Just because Rayne has been around for 80 years or so is no reason for people to enter into business arrangements under the false assumption that they would be supporting an ethical, trustworthy corporation.


If your branch is run more ethically than the San Jose branch, I applaud you.  I wish I had gotten a job at a branch whose only link to the above described chicanery was limited to the brand name placed on the office, uniforms, and equipment.  It is unfortunate that my bringing these facts to light in such a manner has hurled you into a blind fury such that you have focused all of your anger upon me.  Please slow down and take some time to question the corporation which you serve and which you assume to be serving your best interests.


Yours and every other Rayne branch has the right and the ability to remove my comments from their Facebook pages.  However, I control the links to this truth as placed upon many other forums.  If those links are to be removed, it will happen at my discretion.  Any number of threats inclusive of the actual initiation of legal action by you or any other representatives of this corporation will not influence such a decision.  I shall gladly remove all outstanding references to this report under either of the following two conditions:
1)  If I am certain that the corporation has acted to right the wrongs AND to punish the guilty to a degree which I find satisfactory.
2)  If I am ordered to do so by a court of law.


You want a personal account of field service calls?  How's this:  among the customers I recall who received a rebed with garbage resin is a lawyer in the rural extremities south of Los Gatos.  I do not know his area of expertise, but I would wager that he would show interest in such a case and could refer me to someone quite capable of handling my defense, inclusive of filing counter suit.


Do I still sound like a disgruntled ex-employee babbling foundationless accusations?  I admit to being far from gruntled with this situation, but every accusation I have made has a foundation of stone.  Please understand that any legal victory for you in this matter will neither come cheaply nor easily and is by no means guaranteed.  However, if you still wish to embark on legal action, bring it.

I used to work for Steve Hamblett back in 2002 and can attest he is the polar opposite of the accusations mentioned in the report. I am a independent Rayne dealer in the Central Valley and I oversee my own operation.

This report screams of someone just being a "disgruntled former employee." Even within this person's report, he/she describes "a testing procedure I described to them may be wrong" and relays information given to him by another individual (aka " hearsay"). It sure does not sound like this person was a service technician; otherwise, there would have been some personal accounts relating to field service calls. I would challenge that individual to take his or her claim through proper legal channels. 

This person infers that all Rayne dealers partake in unethical practices and posted that statement on my company's Facebook page.  Those statements are completely false and are to be considered slanderous and libel.  I am serving notice in this forum that he or she must remove or retract their statements on other company sites immediately or face legal action. 

If this person can prove through the CA labor board or Santa Clara County Superior Court ruling that Rayne has committed any of the actions mentioned, then "go for it." If "Ripoff Report" allows individuals like this to continue to make claims that cannot be backed by verifiable means, then they are also potentially exposing their ownership to damage claims and legal action. 

It seems like anyone with a good imagination can load up a fictional story on this website and libel against anyone or any business.