Sign in

Quackenbush Cesspools Inc

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Quackenbush Cesspools Inc? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Quackenbush Cesspools Inc

Quackenbush Cesspools Inc Reviews (3)

Quackenbush Cesspools strives for excellent customer service We were called to this property on two separate occasions and discussed prices and work necessary to solve their septic EmergencyThe customer was made fully aware and agreed to the costsWe have since settled this matter in court
and the customer is paying for the work completed & has apologized for not understanding how a septic system works & has thanked us for doing the job right. Danielle Q***President

Review: This firm services cesspools. A tenant reported to me that the septic system had backed up, and so I asked the firm to assess the situation in anticipation of rectifying it. The firm ultimately pumped the tank out and cleared the line of infiltrating roots, for which I was charged $800, including a holiday-weekend fee. Quackenbush then informed me that there is a break in the line and so the system will fail again within two weeks, and corrective work would cost $800. This dispute centers on the firm's repeated, adamant, and frankly rude refusal to provide any meaningful detail on the condition its workers discovered, thus depriving me of sufficient knowledge for determining myself if replacing the line should -- in my hopefully informed judgment rather than the firms self-interested reckoning -- be done right away and at substantial cost and inconvenience. Two points need be emphasized:(1) I paid for the information. The firm bears an obligation to tell me what its workers found in my system. This is especially so where the firm claims that the additional work must be performed on an emergency basis and so creates a panic situation. I was told there was a break in the line, but not where the break was nor how it was determined that there was a break; when I pointed out that the line had been damaged some years ago and then patched, and when I asked if it was possible that what they detected as a break was in fact the cracked pipe but intact patch, they simply refused to respond. Each time I asked for more information than just "There is a break in the line," the endless reprise was "I don't know what more I can tell you," even though almost nothing was told. Curiously, were I onsite at the time of the work, the firm's workers would have almost surely told me what I needed to know. (2) There needs to be a good-faith basis for advising that work must be done on an emergency basis, and that means an articulable factual basis, which the firm refused to provide, and thus might lack.Desired Settlement: A partial refund is due for the failure to provide information which would be expected to come along with the service provided.

Business

Response:

In response to [redacted] claim that “the firm bears an obligation to tell me what its workers found in my system,” we provided him with all the necessary information to make an educated decision as to how to proceed with the septic issue at his property in [redacted]. We believe this was an issue of mis-understanding and was mis-construed by [redacted] given his past experience with other companies (explained below). [redacted] was only billed for work he authorized prior to our technicians arrival on his property.

[redacted] called Quackenbush Cesspools Inc. for service on his septic system. During our initial phone conversation he explained his tenants were experiencing a backup of the septic system and needed it resolved. The tenants were not able to use their toilet facilities and were experiencing overflow. . [redacted] also provided the following information:

There had been a root in the line around five or six years ago. I was not present when the line was cleared, and inexplicably and to my substantial displeasure, the worker without my authorization removed the overflow port which had sat under the deck near the house, and this is probably why the line is backing up into the house rather than overflowing outside.

We provided [redacted] our protocol to diagnose the issue as well as the costs of these services. He was provided with the following information: To determine the cause of the malfunction, the technician on site must first pump down the cesspool to get a visual of both the incoming and outgoing waste lines. They will test the function of the waste line (i.e. flush the tioliet or run water). If it does not drain, this indicates a clog in the line. If this occurs, the technician will insert a snake or a RotoRooter into the waste line to clear the clog. [redacted] was provided with all of the above information as well as the cost for each of these services. He provided his credit card information and authorized the above diagnostic services. Our Technician went to the property and performed the services indicated above and only those services. The aforementioned services totaled $797.31, for which he was billed and and provided a credit card for payment upon completion. [redacted] was informed that our Tech found sand in the waste line which indicates a break/crack somewhere in the line. When sand/soil appears in the line it is a clear indicator that a break has occurred, allowing sand/soil into the line. He was given the option to replace the line in order to prevent any further back up of the septic system for his tenants. He was informed that there is no way to determine how long the line would remain operable. A cracked line is bound to get clogged again and should be replaced to resolve the problem. The following communication followed to which we feel [redacted] became confused and accusatory.

[redacted] wrote on 5/**:

To which we replied on 5/**:

There was, under no circumstances work performed that was not authorized by you. When you called to book the appointment I clearly went over the procedure that we would use to determine what the issue you were having was. We always start with the Cesspool or Septic tank, if it's full we pump it down to see how the line reacts and if the water starts flowing through the line. As we discussed in the initial phone conversation, the charge for that is $279 per 1,000 gallons. If the line is not clear at that point we would try to run a snake through/or RotoRooter to clear any blockage in the line. That charge varies from $175-$275 depending on what equipment needs to be used and the severity of the clog. The additional Emergency Call service charge of $250 was also discussed and verbally agreed upon before we booked the appointment because you couldn't wait until Tuesday for the service. The technicians on site determined that there is a break in the line under your deck. That is not something we are equipped to fix on site at an emergency call on a Sunday. It requires additional time and materials. It is more involved and requires digging the existing line up under the deck and to the Cesspool and the installation a new PVC line that would connect to existing cast iron at the foundation and run to the existing cesspool, backfill trench with existing dirt from site. With that said I am not clear on what charges you feel were not authorized because you personally authorized all of the above on the phone with me.

In my e-mail dated 5/** at 7:46 am I made it clear that we've gone over everything multiple times and there is nothing further that [redacted] could possibly explain that both he and I have not already explained. He is in the field working, I run the office. If you still feel need to speak with [redacted] he will call you at his convenience and reiterate everything that I have told you, that he has already told you and that I have written in both the estimate and in the above e-mail. There is nothing he can say that I haven't already discussed with you.

To address your above comments regarding you limiting the amount of "billable work" onsite.....You called us because your tenants were having problems related to the septic system or waste lines. We did the bare minimum to get them working so they could enjoy their Memorial Day weekend. That's what you called us to do and that's what we did.

I encourage you to have another company come give you an estimate and assess the situation. They will have the same conclusion that we had. Your line is broken. It is temporarily cleared to limp your tenants along but there is no guarantee how long it will stay clear because it is "BROKEN".

I hope you have a spectacular weekend!

[redacted] then responded with these questions on 5/**:

To Which I then replied:

It was determined based on the fact that sand was in the line. No, us clearing the line did not render the break more vulnerable the clog was due to the break. As we discussed on Sunday we do not, under any circumstances, "patch a line" with couplings. When we do a job we fix the problem not limp it along, as [redacted] explained. If you would like the line to be patched again I'm sure the previous company would be happy to do it again. If the entire line was replaced 5 yrs ago you wouldn't have needed our services this past weekend.

I hope that clears up all your questions.

I clearly answered his questions, which was then followed by:

I followed with:

If you don't trust our professionalism, experience & knowledge regarding what's wrong & what needs to be done than it's clear to me you don't trust us to do the work.

Yes it's your property & you can choose to do what you want with the issue you have. Sand... Soil.,. Dirt.... Whatever the ground consists of under your deck. Why are you questioning the composition of the organic material in the line? Whether the break is under the deck or near the pool it still needs to be replaced.

We are experts in the field & have been doing this a long time. I have spent more than enough time explaining everything. I wish you the best of luck.

Best Regards,

[redacted] continued to make rude and accusatory claims:

I provided him with this :

I can't explain it anymore clearly. The snake measures where the break is. When it can't travel through the line because of the break we can then measure the length of the snake with the line.

And although I've told you multiple times what we have found and what needs to be done to fix the problem you still claim that we have no idea what we are talking about.

I am not contributing any more of my time or energy to explain this to you anymore. Please get another opinion.

Even if you decide to move forward and fix the line, at this point, we have chosen to cease our business relationship with you.

On May [redacted]. [redacted] responded:

This is the first time you explained that you sent the snake through until it was stopped, and that’s how you discerned a break. You’re finally giving at least part of the explanation I’ve been seeking from you for a week. Now I simply need to understand whether, if the snake was stopped because a part of the pipe is chipped away, the pipe might nonetheless remain securely sealed by a Fernco rubber clamp. It sounds as if although the snake would stop at the defect, you would be unable to tell if integrity of the pipe were nonetheless maintained by the clamp wrapped on the outside.

It is amazing that you feel that this basic information, which I’ve been soliciting from you for a week, should be kept secret from me. The fact that you no longer would accept additional work from me, were I to offer it to you, does not release you from the basic obligation you assumed by doing the original job for which you were retained and paid.

The above contains our email correspondences and this was all after explaining everything verbally via phone as well. It is clear from the above communication that [redacted] was confused as he circled back to our original communication where we told him we would have to pump the system down and if clogged, we would snake the line. These are the services [redacted] was billed for and paid for. We repeatedly provided [redacted] with the information he requested and on numerous occasions.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: the company does not actually refute my claims, but simply excuses its conduct.

I brought two complaints against Quackenbush and its co-owners: first, that notwithstanding my repeated phone and email inquiries, Quackenbush withheld from me meaningful information about what it found in my septic system, instead dismissing my quest for substantive information with a trust-us, we’re-the-experts bromide. Without that information, I cannot make independent decisions about what work should be done when. Since I paid Quackenbush to work on my system, this is information to which I’m due. Second, Quackenbush presented the condition of my system as dire and requiring immediate remediation at significant cost, yet the company had an apparently inadequate basis to make such a self-serving diagnosis.

In its answer to my complaint, (1) Quackenbush does not dispute that information was not given. Rather, the co-owners simply continue to assert that telling me that there’s a break in the pipe and it has to be replaced is complete information and there’s nothing more to share, even though I asked pointed questions seeking the information which would be necessary for me, rather than Quackenbush, to decide what needs to be done; (2) and in attempting to rebuff the fact that Quackenbush characterized the need for additional work as urgent, the company reformulates the actual words it repeatedly offered – that the system could fail in “two days, or two weeks” – into a claim that they warned only that the system would at some point fail.

In its answer, Quackenbush compounds my complaint by misstating another fact. My contemporaneous records (among other things) are unambiguously clear that I was never told that the technicians would have to “first pump down the cesspool” before they could do any other work, and that this was a certain $279 charge on top of the other prices quoted. The prices I was quoted were $250 emergency fee, $175 to $275 to clear the line, and $50 a foot digging to get to the tank. When I learned the tank was pumped, I was surprised and understood it to be something which the crew decided on the spot needed to be done. If, as Quackenbush now claims, the $279 was an inevitable part of the fee, then Quackenbush totally misquoted the potential cost by not mentioning that $279. If Quackenbush would like to contest this, then I can recruit further evidence.

Nonetheless, that was not the weight of my protest.

(a) The primary issue is that Quackenbush refused to provide me with the information it had and I needed on what it found on my property, but instead repeatedly gave only a conclusory statement, and not more, that there is a break in the line and it has to be replaced. I was warned by Quackenbush not only that the line had to be replaced, but that it had to be replaced promptly – that it might last “two days or two weeks” – and not simply, as mischaracterized by Quackenbush in its response, that “there is no way to determine how long the line would remain operable.” Had I been told that, as opposed to being given exhortation of imminent collapse, I would not have bothered with this complaint, because I could have addressed the matter myself during an interval between paying tenants.

The email exchange, reproduced for the Revdex.com by Quackenbush, captures the gist of the dispute. Despite my repeated phone calls and ultimately email, it took Quackenbush nearly a week from the service date (5/**/14) to even explain at all that the reason they believed there was a break in the waste line, and that the break was located under the deck, was because “[t]he snake measures where the break is” (email of 5/**/14, [redacted]). Similarly, again despite repeated requests for information, I was told nothing about sand in the waste line until 5/**/14 (email at [redacted]). (The claim about sand leads to the additional question of whether the company owners really communicated with the field crew about specific findings, considering the line travels entirely through a clay-like soil.) Since what they detected as a break might be explained by a functioning patch and thus might require much less urgent attention than they averred, the simple question I posed would have allowed me, rather than Quackenbush, to decide if I needed them to perform additional service.

(b) I was promised repeatedly that [redacted] – a [redacted] – would phone me to explain what they found. The first promise was given on the day of service when he came momentarily to the phone to say he would call me the day after that holiday weekend; the last representation was made in the 5/**/14 email below (at 1029). But he never phoned. (Note that if he had called, even if he did not leave a message, my phone log would have recorded the incoming call.) If he had phoned me as repeatedly promised, he presumably could have answered my questions and possibly avoided this dispute. But from the first time I asked questions following Quackenbush’s service, they refused to provide substantive answers.

(c) Beyond merely refusing to give me the information I repeatedly requested, I was told that replacing the wastewater line was an urgent matter. The line could last two days, I was told, or two weeks. That’s a substantially different warning than the representation made below, which asserts I was told simply that the line will clog sometime again in the future, that I was “informed that there is no way to determine how long the line would remain operable.” This difference between what I was told and what Quackenbush now asserts is not a mere failure in communication; the message given me was a dire warning that if the work were not done promptly, the line would soon collapse. (So far, it has not.)

(d) It is unfortunate that Quackenbush is insulted that I would seek the company to support its recommendation – “If you don't trust our professionalism, experience & knowledge regarding what's wrong & what needs to be done than it's clear to me you don't trust us to do the work” (email of 5/**/14 [redacted]) – but that sense of affront might reveal the core of the problem: that Quackenbush sees no need to provide information to a customer because the customer must simply trust that the company knows what it’s doing. While this is a bit of speculation on my part, it seems pretty well supported by the email exchange. In any case, that’s really the gist of the problem: they don’t see cause to be specific because their expertise is not to be questioned.

In the end, even in its answer to my complaint, Qucakenbush doesn’t dispute that it did not promptly give me even rudimentary information (that the snake stopped at a point under my deck, and that foreign matter got into the waste line), and finally six days later gave me a few crumbs. I kept no mysteries from the company about what information I was seeking and told them why I asked, and I expressly inquired whether it could be that what they had run into with their router was an old patched break (email of 5/**/14, 1047), and if that was so, then would it possibly change their diagnosis (5/**/14 1132). You’ll note that they simply never answered.

Quackenbush is certainly free to provide (honest) estimates on work not yet performed, and to not provide a detailed basis for its estimate. The consumer, then, has the option of going elsewhere. Here, though, Quackenbush did the work, was paid for it, and warned me that the line would have almost immediately to be replaced. There’s no ambiguity here. I asked then for information on why they thought the line was in imminent danger of failure. I said that there was an old patch which might be what they detected as a break, and I asked if it were at least possible that’s what they encountered. If it was, it might suggest that the line was, after all, not in danger of immediate collapse. Quackenbush would not answer. They further added that there was sand in the line, yet any sand was more likely to have come from being washed down the drain than coming from the clay-like soil surrounding the line. The claim of sand appears to be a generic answer, that if the crew says there’s a break in the line, then the way they detected it must have been because (a) the snake stops and (b) sand comes out. Since Quackenbush refused to answer these basic questions, I can’t discern if they actually spoke with their crew. And so they left me with an urgent warning that I had to pay them (or one of their competitors) $800 right away to preclude a problem, without giving me any way to assess independently (and without paying one of their competitors) if the situation really did call for such immediate rectification.

The information I request was so rudimentary, so totally unexceptional, and non-proprietary, that it’s stunning the company feels justified in withholding it, despite having collected on a not insubstantial bill. And again please note that, if I had been able to be onsite at the time their crew performed the work, all these answers would have been forthcoming from the field crew.

In the end, I paid Quackenbush to work on my system, they owed me the information it had. The owners then asserted that additional work would be have to be done within two

weeks, but did not provide a substantive basis for that warning, and apparently did not in fact have a basis for it. That is simply an unethical business practice.

Sincerely,

Review: Was paid in full for work he said was done on February [redacted] 2015 by credit card on file.

One month later debris was going in the basement and bubble noises were back.

Punctured holes in sprinkler pipes we now discovered. Arrived again 1 month later to see,

piece broke on truck, left, waited 3 hours NO QUACKENBUSH. Received phone call next day March ** and Quackenbush Co. put $1 352.17 on credit card without invoice or permission.

The TWO TANKS ARE STILL FULL . Only 1 tank is empty that Quackenbush was paid for. The owner is unrespectable and should be out of business. THANK YOU!Desired Settlement: No further contact by the business

Business

Response:

Quackenbush Cesspools strives for excellent customer service. We were called to this property on two separate occasions and discussed prices and work necessary to solve their septic Emergency. The customer was made fully aware and agreed to the costs. We have since settled this matter in court and the customer is paying for the work completed & has apologized for not understanding how a septic system works & has thanked us for doing the job right. Danielle Q[redacted]President

Check fields!

Write a review of Quackenbush Cesspools Inc

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Quackenbush Cesspools Inc Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: SEPTIC TANKS & SYSTEMS CLEANING

Address: PO Box 4224, East Hampton, New York, United States, 11937

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Quackenbush Cesspools Inc.



Add contact information for Quackenbush Cesspools Inc

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated