A Craig & Son Ltd

We received a call from the [redacted] (Homeowner) stating his boiler is smoking, and had no heat He further mentioned that it was serviced about a year ago, but he stated he doesn't believe that is was serviced correctly (a year later?) Upon arrival, we found the boiler plugged up due to heavy soot After cleaning the boiler and replacing the nozzle and filters our technician found water in the filter canister indicating water coming from the underground oil tankWe explained to the homeowner our findings and he said he was already aware of water in the underground oil tank The Homeowner suggested that we place a gallon gas can next to the oil burner for a temporary solution, and we told him we would not recommend that We invoiced the customer for services rendered: vacuum boiler, breach and pull burner to clean chamber that is heavily sooted The customer paid the bill in full for our services We informed [redacted] that the unit will continue to have problems unless the issue is addressed correctly; by finding the source of the water He would not entertain our suggestion Several weeks later, the Homeowner called with another no heat call Unfortunately, we cannot service a homeowner who does not heed our suggestion for safety and environmental reasons

Preliminarily, it is worth note that only after AStevens Plumbing & Heating (hereinafter “Stevens”) began collection efforts against this client for past-due monies, did the client file this retaliatory claim This contract began with client complaining about low water pressure despite recent check-valve replacement by another contractorWithout more, we recommended pump replacement, quoted a price, and client hired usAfter install, pressure still low Stevens told client the next step would be to access and assess the check-valve, via the well-headClient subsequently located well-head, called Stevens, and we recommended a course of action entailing specified additional charges, which client approvedOur tech began work at the well-head, and subsequently found a hole in the below-grade pipe serving the house The discovery of the hole in the pipe explained the low-pressure issue, and allowed us to present client with a lower additional-cost repair strategy / course of actionClient provided written authorization to our tech to proceed, and said “do whatever it takes to fix the problem.” The repair was accomplished, and pressure was restored in all but a bathroom, traceable to a fixture issue Client now claims amnesia regarding his authorization to us to provide additional labor and material at additional charge, notwithstanding his signed, dated authorization to do so

By way of follresponse to the client’s reply to A Stevens’ response to the client’s complaint, please be reminded that only after A Stevens began collection efforts against this client for past-due monies, did Client file this retaliatory claimFor four months after Stevens completed the work, Client was apparently satisfied with the work, but made no effort whatsoever to pay for it Client’s reply restates his initial complaintInasmuch as A Stevens previously addressed same, a restatement by A Stevens is unnecessarySuffice to say, it is counter to all good business practice, to continue in the employ of a client who authorizes work but refuses to pay for itMarc Bosser is such a client To sum up, Client had another contractor perform work, prior to A Stevens’ involvement, which Client deemed unsatisfactory(Modus operandi?) Client next contacted A Stevens, who identified issues, provided a price to remedy same, and, once work began, identified additional issues unknowable beforehandA price was provided to Client before work on the additional issues commenced The additional work was undertaken by A Stevens at Client’s request, only after Client’s verbal and written authorizations to do so were received by A StevensThose authorizations belie Client’s claims to the contrary, and form the basis of the litigation A Stevens will commence, absent full and immediate payment for all labor and materials provided Client by A StevensNo amount of subterfuge will avoid either payment, or collectionA Stevens is a long established, well regarded regional company, secure in the knowledge that Client’s libelous rants are without basis It is all well and good to put up a smokescreen after the fact, however, this is quite simply a case of a client who is attempting to avoid a contractual obligation to pay for labor and materials providedResolution of his home plumbing issues apparently exceeded his means, and he now seeks to have someone else subsidize his cost of living

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
It seems AStevens waited many months and now advised me I owe additional funds. On the day when the work was completed AStevens advised me to pay the bill and at that time I apprised them on the phone that charging me almost three times the original estimate was unacceptableAfter the owner of AStevens harassed me on the phone for over one hour, he informed me to pay what was “fair”I responded to the owner the amount originally quoted for the work as fairI paid this amount in full on that day and the issue was closedLikewise, I advised AStevens the work was not completed satisfactory and on the Job Invoice itself, I wrote the words pending alongside Work Acceptance. With your efforts of deflection of the real issues aside and a desperate defense of a losing argument, the original issues have not been resolved. First, the Goulds J-pump installed by AStevens on 6/*/does not work properlyWater flow does not function correctly in every room in the houseAdditionally, using more than one source of water simultaneously reduces the amount making it unusable. Second, AStevens is trying to collect money almost “three times” the original quoted amount for an installed Goulds J-pump which is similar to a “Bait-and-switch” tactic. I would also like to respond about “A Stevens is a long established, well regarded regional company”A quick check of the reputable yelp.com which publish crowd-sourced reviews about local businesses shows that AStevens has 71% unsatisfactory reviews and on a scale of to rates as a low 2.5.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I will sum up my response in five unresolved points: In response to the low-pressure issue, a hole was found in the pipe leading to the well, and I was informed by the technician that replacement piping was cents a footThe technician then drove to the Plumbing supply house (AStevens Plumbing billed me for this time as part of their “hours as well”) to buy the pipe to fix the holeThey claim a “lower cost repair strategy” but the cost was additionally 2.5x times over what I was originally quoted to replace the pumpIn addition, AStevens Plumbing already charged me $above the cost for the pump and installation (which the technician completed in about one hour). The bathroom problem was not traceable to a single fixture issue; the fixture is new as is all the plumbing in the house and affects the shower and sink, and not one sourceAlso the “fixture” was working 100% with the old pump before AStevens Plumbing replaced it. Also there is only sufficient water pressure to run one water device in the house at the same timeIf multiple sources of water are used such as the outside hose and then the kitchen sink, water from these sources is reduced to an amount making it unusable in comparison to when only using a single device. In addition the company, wants to charge me hours of additional labor for something that does not work correctlyAfter hours of labor the expectation would be their product to work correctly so either the work AStevens Plumbing provided or their pump is at faultOne of their workers was an year old “helper” brought along to help dig a hole for access to the wellThe hole was mostly dug out before AStevens arrived (or course not a problem for AStevens Plumbing they billed me another $hour for this “helper”). Since AStevens Plumbing product does not work correctly, I now have to seek repair or replacement for their faulty equipment and/or work by a reputable and reliable third partyWhich will provide a completely working source of water in every room of the house regardless of the number of water sources in use
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

By way of follow-up response to the client’s reply to A Stevens’ response to the client’s complaint, please be reminded that only after A Stevens began collection efforts against this client for past-due monies, did Client file this retaliatory claim. For four months after Stevens completed the work, Client was apparently satisfied with the work, but made no effort whatsoever to pay for it.   Client’s reply restates his initial complaint. Inasmuch as A Stevens previously addressed same, a restatement by A Stevens is unnecessary. Suffice to say, it is counter to all good business practice, to continue in the employ of a client who authorizes work but refuses to pay for it. Marc Bosser is such a client.   To sum up, Client had another contractor perform work, prior to A Stevens’ involvement, which Client deemed unsatisfactory. (Modus operandi?) Client next contacted A Stevens, who identified issues, provided a price to remedy same, and, once work began, identified additional issues unknowable beforehand. A price was provided to Client before work on the additional issues commenced.   The additional work was undertaken by A Stevens at Client’s request, only after Client’s verbal and written authorizations to do so were received by A Stevens. Those authorizations belie Client’s claims to the contrary, and form the basis of the litigation A Stevens will commence, absent full and immediate payment for all labor and materials provided Client by A Stevens. No amount of subterfuge will avoid either payment, or collection. A Stevens is a long established, well regarded regional company, secure in the knowledge that Client’s libelous rants are without basis.   It is all well and good to put up a smokescreen after the fact, however, this is quite simply a case of a client who is attempting to avoid a contractual obligation to pay for labor and materials provided. Resolution of his home plumbing issues apparently exceeded his means, and he now seeks to have someone else subsidize his cost of living.

We received a call from the [redacted] (Homeowner) stating his boiler is smoking, and had no heat.  He further mentioned that it was serviced about a year ago, but he stated he doesn't believe that is was serviced correctly (a year later?).  Upon arrival, we found the boiler plugged up...

due to heavy soot.  After cleaning the boiler and replacing the nozzle and filters our technician found water in the filter canister indicating water coming from the underground oil tank. We explained to the homeowner our findings and he said he was already aware of water in the underground oil tank.  The Homeowner suggested that we  place  a 5 gallon gas can next to the oil burner for a temporary solution, and we told him we would not recommend that .  We invoiced the customer for services rendered:  vacuum boiler, breach and pull burner to clean chamber that is heavily sooted.  The customer paid the bill in full for our services.  We informed [redacted] that the unit will continue to have problems unless the issue is addressed correctly; by finding the source of the water .   He would not entertain our suggestion.  Several weeks later, the Homeowner called with another  no heat call.  Unfortunately, we cannot service a homeowner who does not heed  our suggestion for safety and environmental reasons.

Preliminarily, it is worth note that only after A. Stevens Plumbing & Heating (hereinafter “Stevens”) began collection efforts against this client for past-due monies, did the client file this retaliatory claim.   This contract began with client complaining about low water pressure despite...

recent check-valve replacement by another contractor. Without more, we recommended pump replacement, quoted a price, and client hired us. After install, pressure still low.   Stevens told client the next step would be to access and assess the check-valve, via the well-head. Client subsequently located well-head, called Stevens, and we recommended a course of action entailing specified additional charges, which client approved. Our tech began work at the well-head, and subsequently found a hole in the below-grade pipe serving the house.   The discovery of the hole in the pipe explained the low-pressure issue, and allowed us to present client with a lower additional-cost repair strategy / course of action. Client provided written authorization to our tech to proceed, and said “do whatever it takes to fix the problem.” The repair was accomplished, and pressure was restored in all but a bathroom, traceable to a fixture issue.   Client now claims amnesia regarding his authorization to us to provide additional labor and material at additional charge, notwithstanding his signed, dated authorization to do so.