<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Afternoon wrenches.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>For those who use or are considering Lumos for special applications like covered awning, pergolas, and carports, be aware of their actions after recalling modules because of an unsafe junction box design. In Apreil they recalled for first time I experienced in 12-yrs, a recall and “turn off / do not use recall of effect modules.<br><br>Mistakes happen, but delaying replacement module deliveries while still fulfilling orders for new customers is tough pill to swallow. July turned to August for replacement but today, that has now extended to November. My email response is below:<br><br>“Waiting until November is horrible. These modules should have been delivered from immediately incoming modules, even if new projects were advised they would incur some delay. To put recall modules at the end of what appears to be a very long line for a July delivery was a poor choice. To have that shift into August was understandable, but frustrating.<br><br>Now to be told November now is really bad. There is no excuse for this when other modules are being provided to others. <br><br>Here is what it looks like on my end – Lumos chose to anger just a few customers rather than frustrate many by making their deliveries shift by weeks to cover the recall module replacements. It looks like shifting by months for those of us on recall was deemed to be a lesser cost to Lumos overall, but it seems to me that when a company has a safety recall, it’s top priority should be to make right its error. Instead, Lumos has multiplied its error by a poor decision to put the recall replacements at the end of this delivery line. Surely you have delivered modules between notification of the recall and today.<br><br>I have read through this warranty. It covers “defects in materials and workmanship” but what you have here is a more substantial design deficiency. You didn’t just provide a module that delaminated or some other deficiency, but in fact have provided modules that you state are unsafe to use.<br><br><b>I expect these modules to be replaced sooner than November</b>. <u>If it is the position of Lumos that it will not replace these modules sooner than November, and provide my full costs to remove and reinstall these modules (which is $13,125) and reimburse for lost solar production (calculated today at 8-months of zero production resulting in missed value of $1,785 to date), then please forward my response here to your CEO (Scott Franklin?) and I’ll send his final answer to my attorney to seek maximum reimbursement allowed under the law.<br></u><br>It really should not have come to this. If Lumos has prioritized addressing its quality control deficiency which led to a safety recall immediately, installers like me would have understood a 2-3 month delay. November is wholly unacceptable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Please provide me the name of your CEO and President.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><img width=588 height=232 style='width:6.125in;height:2.4166in' id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01DAF7D6.3E14E630"><span style='mso-ligatures:none'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>