Dust Chasers normally handles customer concerns privately. However, because this review contains several serious allegations regarding our company, our employee and our response to the complaint, we believe it is appropriate to provide the documented timeline and relevant communications.
WHY WE CREATED THIS PAGE
Our intention is not to attack a customer. It is to provide the other side of the story and allow readers to review the contemporaneous communications for themselves.
The screenshots below are original communications between Paige Pawluk and Dust Chasers. Private phone numbers and unrelated personal information have been removed.
The review we are responding to:
The review makes several allegations, including that Dust Chasers caused damage to multiple components, failed to take responsibility and left the customer to resolve the HVAC problem herself.
The timeline below provides important context regarding what Dust Chasers actually did after being notified of the concern.
Date of Service
Paige Pawluk hired Dust Chasers to perform service at her condominium on August 12, 2026.
August 27th 2026 The HVAC Concern
APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS LATER, AN HVAC CONCERN IS REPORTED
Dust Chasers was contacted regarding a concern with the operation of the customer’s HVAC system.
We did not refuse assistance. We immediately began contacting HVAC professionals so that the equipment could be inspected and the cause of the reported problem could be determined.
Dust Chasers Begins Arranging HVAC Assistance
Call records documenting attempts to communicate with the customer and HVAC professionals while arranging assistance.
We called Paige Pawluk at 12:27, the conversation lasted for 2 minutes
As soon as we hung up with Paige Pawluk we immediately called Blue Sky Comfort Care, Unfortunately they were busy so we had to call the next HVAC contractor
Dust Chasers then immediately called another HVAC contractor
HVAC professional arranged!
WE ARRANGED AN HVAC PROFESSIONAL
Paige Pawluk was informed that an HVAC professional would contact her directly to arrange an appointment.
This is approximately 3 minutes since we got off the phone with Paige Pawluk.
Paige asked Gino if he would bring the blower compartment with him. Gino explained that he must first diagnose the problem. If she needs a new blower, he will need the equipment’s make and model to purchase the correct part. This requirement caused the disagreement, as Gino maintained he must inspect the unit to identify the exact issue first.
The following morning, despite the disagreement that had occurred during the telephone conversation between Paige and the HVAC contractor, we were informed that someone could still attend her unit before 9 AM as promised a day before
The inspection doesn’t proceed!
Paige subsequently described what occurred during her telephone conversation with the HVAC contractor.
SO YEAH, I HUNG UP ON HIM.”
“I TOLD HIM TO CANCEL IT. I FOUND MY OWN PEOPLE.
PAIGE REPORTED THAT SHE FELT SHE HAD BEEN YELLED AT
Paige told Dust Chasers that she believed the HVAC contractor had yelled at her and called her a liar.
Management was not present during that telephone conversation and therefore could not independently determine what had occurred.
We nevertheless acknowledged her concern rather than dismissing it.
Why you needed an inspection?
WE COULD NOT DETERMINE RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT AN INSPECTION
Paige was alleging that something had been damaged during the service.
Rather than immediately dismissing that allegation—or immediately accepting responsibility without knowing what had failed—we explained that a qualified HVAC professional needed to inspect the system and determine the cause.
A mechanical component experiencing a problem 2 weeks after a service does not, by itself, establish the cause of the failure. That is why an inspection was necessary
After Paige elected to have another company inspect the equipment, Dust Chasers still attempted to obtain the results of that inspection.To this day our text message has gone unanswered.
REGARDING THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING OUR TECHNICIAN
Paige later alleged that our technician asked whether she lived alone and that the interaction made her uncomfortable.
Dust Chasers takes concerns regarding employee conduct seriously.
Management was not present during the alleged conversation and therefore cannot independently confirm the exact wording, context or circumstances of what was said.
The concern was brought to our attention approximately two weeks after the original service. We asked why the matter had not been reported while the technician was present because immediate notification would have allowed management to investigate the allegation at the time.
That question was not intended to dismiss the concern.
Unfortunately, communications became increasingly contentious.
Dust Chasers had acknowledged the customer’s concerns, contacted HVAC professionals, arranged an inspection, continued offering an appointment after the disagreement with the contractor, permitted the customer to obtain her own inspection and requested the resulting report.
We also have an obligation to maintain reasonable and respectful communications between customers, employees and contractors.
After the interactions became increasingly hostile and Paige elected to have another company handle the matter, we advised that we would not be sending additional personnel to the property.
Summary;
✓ The service occurred August 12.
✓ The HVAC concern was reported approximately two weeks later.
✓ Dust Chasers immediately began arranging HVAC assistance.
✓ An HVAC inspection was available before 9:00 AM.
✓ Paige stated that she ended the call, told the contractor to cancel and found her own people.
✓ Dust Chasers allowed an outside HVAC company and subsequently followed up requesting its report.
We strongly disagree with the characterization that Dust Chasers simply caused damage, refused responsibility and abandoned the customer.
The communications presented above show that we attempted to investigate the complaint and determine what actually happened.
Our position:
Dust Chasers has been serving customers for almost 20 years. We take legitimate complaints seriously and believe businesses should be accountable when something goes wrong.
Accountability, however, also requires establishing what actually happened.
When a mechanical failure is alleged approximately two weeks after service, the appropriate response is to inspect the equipment, determine the cause and document the findings.
That is what we attempted to do.
We have published the relevant communications so that readers do not have to rely solely on either party’s characterization of the events. They can review the documentation and reach their own conclusions.