Carrier Air Conditioning - Supply of defective air conditioning compressor motor

Posted on Sunday, June 18th, 2006 at 12:00am CDT by fe37d0b2

Company: Carrier Air Conditioning - Supply of defective air conditioning compressor motor

Category: Other

Carrier Air Conditioning - Supply of defective air conditioning compressor motor

June 17, 2006

Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Ltd, (A subsidiary of UTC Corporation). Head Office, Victoria, Australia 17th June 2006 This complaint is about the mechanical failure of a sealed compressor motor, manufactured in the USA and forming part of an air conditioning system. The compressor failed within twelve months of operation costing $3,000AUS ($2,250US) to replace. Carrier Air Conditioning has rejected the claim out of hand and without examining the failed compressor. Carrier Air Conditioning refuses to enter into meaningful discussions to resolve the dispute. At a cost of an additional $5,000 AUS ($3,750US), three independent reports by Unisearch Ltd, a division of the University of NSW Australia, have established the cause of failure is in fact a manufacturing defect within the sealed compressor. The authors of the reports are, Dr Robert Casey and Dr Keith Thompson, both eminent engineers in the discipline of mechanical engineering. Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Ltd continues to ignore these reports: copies are available in PDF format upon request [COMPLAINTS.COM_FORM_MAIL_54344#]. The dispute is now before the Court in NSW, Australia. Legal fees incurred by myself are now in excess of $10,000 AUS ($7,500 USD) whilst the legal fees incurred by Carrier Air Conditioning are in excess of $20,000 ($15,000 US) and all over the ($2,500US) replacement cost of the compressor. Total expenditure for all parties has now reached $26,750US plus the compressor. The Court will eventually resolve the matter. My complaint centers around the failure of Carrier Air Conditioning (a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation) to consider the claim. Their out of hand rejection is in direct conflict with the stated aims, aspirations and objectives being “Customer satisfaction is our principal goal.” And “to behave ethically in all our business dealings.” A review of the various UTC web sites is choked with similar sentiments. My experience with carrier Air Conditioning is that their corporate behaviour is both misleading and deceptive. Seventy percent of UTC earnings are derived externally from the USA. Because Carrier Air Conditioning are doing all in their power to ‘bury’ this claim through the litigation process, I suspect the problem with the compressor is well known to them and the possibility of a major product recall is a deciding attitude factor. Had the failure of the compressor been a one off situation, and taking into account the public statements of how dedicated Carrier Air Conditioning are in providing quality product and exceptional service, a normal person would assume Carrier Air Conditioning would want to determine the cause of the compressor failure. Further suspicion is raised by the current tactic of Carrier Air Conditioning, through the Court, to have the damning technical report of Dr Casey removed from the brief of evidence. This motion of Carrier Air Conditioning is currently before the Court to decide and is based on a technical Court evidence procedural point and nothing to do with the report content. In other words Carrier Air Conditioning recognises the validity of Dr Casey’s report in identifying the cause of the compressor failure. The Australian head office of Carrier Air Conditioning refuse to discuss the merits or otherwise of this claim. In fact I have been advised by their legal representative consideration is being given to commencing further litigation claiming libel and slander on my part. I recently wrote to the CEO of UTC, located in Hartford CT, expressing a concern at this ‘closed door’ approach to a consumer issue. I have yet to receive a response although accept the situation it is now no longer fashionable for large corporate entities to partake in day to day business courtesies. Copies of the technical reports into the cause of the compressor failure are available in a PDF format as an email attachment upon request. COMPLAINTS.COM_FORM_MAIL_54344# Brock

P O Box R1856

Royal Exchange NSW 1225 Australia


3 Comments

Post a Comment

47712896, 2008-04-27, 12:49PM CDT

how was your claim finally resolved in the courts?

I have had a Carrier air conditioner for 18 years without problems and I was about to buy another Carrier model until I happened upon your complaint.

3d488556, 2010-05-22, 11:54PM CDT

You are right .They are manufacturing and supplying AC Units once out of 1 year warranty and their own authorised dealers are inducing faults with careless handling during servicing and then repairs and repeated repairs. How they are not scared of their reputation? I wonder how they will survive? I purchased 2 Wiondow ACS from them and I am facing same fate i.e gas leakage after ist service. In second AC even PCB repacement is being done third time . all on chargebale basis they say.

594dd706, 2013-09-06, 07:30PM CDT

What was the outcome of the case in Australia from 2006? It is now 2013.

Post a Comment