All-Tex Waste Water Services

Complaint: I have reviewed Mr [redacted] ’ offer of settlement, and have the following comments: He offered to refund a total of $for inspections not performed and chlorine tablets not supplied That would be fair He mentioned that he uses three chlorine tablets per inspection That’s only nine tablets a year which could cost him less than $ He charges his customers $per year That’s good business – for him I would expect an experienced wastewater service operator to recognize that a ½ hp pump is standard for most residential systems and, since a ½ hp pump was being replaced, it shouldn’t require a wholesaler to convince him the ¾ hp pump was not necessary I know the pump that was installed was a ½ hp pump I also know the entry on the invoice is “Franklin ¾ hp pump S/N# $589.30” Mr [redacted] states that the price and serial number on the invoice match a ½ hp pump Well, maybe or maybe not I spoke with Franklin Electric, who manufactures pumps, and they say their serial numbers do not distinguish between ½ hp and ¾ hp pumps and are digits long, not sixTherefore, I remain skeptical that the invoice entry is correct Mr [redacted] did not address at all the most disturbing thing about his behavior That is returning to my property and removing the aerator which he said he could not and would not take out I would not object to him taking the aerator itselfHowever, I most certainly do object to the fact that he would remove it and turn off the aerator alarm and not have the courtesy to tell me he had done so Had I not arranged for an immediate follinspection by a more capable firm, I might not have learned that I had no aerator in my system until May or June, if it did not fail sooner That is unacceptableConsequently, despite the $which I feel I am owed, I cannot accept this settlement

We would like to apologize for any confusion or frustration the consumer has experienced, it is our intent to please customers and not disappointWe did not charge nor install a 3/hp pump for this customerOriginally that was the plan however after discussion with the pump wholesaler it was determined that the system would work properly with a smaller pumpWe installed and charged the customer for a 1/hp pump, the serial number and price on the invoice match a 1/hp pumpTherefore we will not be able to refund any money on the pumpAs for the chlorine tablets, it is our standard practice to put three chlorine tablets in the systemIf you put too many tablets in the tube they will become mushy and will not work properlyWe do not want the consumer to be dissatisfied so we are willing to refund the $as requestedWe are also more than happy to refund $for the inspection the consumer did not receive under his maintenance contract.Again we would like to apologize for any confusion and are hopeful that this settlement is satisfactory to the consumer

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11455318, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Sincerely, [redacted]

This issue has already been resolvedThe owner of ALL-TEX Wastewater met with the homeowner and performed the inspection on the septic systemWe would like to apologize for any miscommunication that occurred on our behalf and hope the consumer is satisfied with the outcome

Complaint: 11127993 I have reviewed Mr. [redacted]’ offer of settlement, and have the following comments: 1.      He offered to refund a total of $95.00 for inspections not performed and chlorine tablets not supplied.  That would be fair. 2.      He mentioned that he uses three chlorine tablets per inspection.  That’s only nine tablets a year which could cost him less than $14.  He charges his customers $44 per year.  That’s good business – for him. 3.      I would expect an experienced wastewater service operator to recognize that a ½ hp pump is standard for most residential systems and, since a ½ hp pump was being replaced, it shouldn’t require a wholesaler to     convince him the ¾ hp pump was not necessary.              I know the pump that was installed was a ½ hp pump.              I also know the entry on the invoice is “1 Franklin ¾ hp pump S/N# 348016 $589.30”.           Mr. [redacted] states that the price and serial number on the invoice match a ½ hp pump.  Well, maybe or maybe not.            I spoke with Franklin Electric, who manufactures pumps, and they say their serial numbers do not distinguish between ½ hp and ¾ hp pumps and are 10 digits long, not six. Therefore, I remain skeptical that the invoice entry is correct. 4.      Mr. [redacted] did not address at all the most disturbing thing about his behavior.  That is returning to my property and removing the aerator which he said he could not and would not take out.  I would not object to him taking the aerator itself. However, I most certainly do object to the fact that he would remove it and turn off the aerator alarm and not have the courtesy to tell me he had done so.  Had I not arranged for an immediate follow-up inspection by a more capable firm, I might not have learned that I had no aerator in my system until May or June, if it did not fail sooner.  That is unacceptable. Consequently, despite the $95 which I feel I am owed, I cannot accept this settlement.

Once again we would like to issue an apology to the consumer. We strive to provide excellent service and want our customers to be satisfied.1. We are able to issue a $95.00 refund as requested by the consumer.2. As mentioned before, we use three chlorine tablets in the system in order to keep it functioning properly. If too many tablets are placed in the tube they will become mushy and not serve their purpose. We do this in an effort to keep the system performing properly and not for any other reason.3. Upon removing the bad pump from the consumer's system, [redacted] noticed that it was longer than the usual 1/2 hp pump we typically use on a residential unit. It was also a different brand than we typically use. [redacted] assumed because of the size of the pump it was a 3/4 hp pump. He consulted with the wholesaler about the sizing only to later see that the pump removed was actually 1/2 hp. [redacted] has 15 years of experience and prides himself on honesty and integrity. He consulted with the wholesaler because he thought he removed a 3/4 hp pump originally and didn't want to replace it with something that wouldn't work properly. He did this in an effort to provide satisfactory service for the consumer. We apologize if this caused any confusion. The consumer was charged for a 1/2 hp pump and received a 1/2 hp pump.4. As for removal of the aerator from the system. We did remove our aerator from the system, as the consumer did not pay for the aerator and instructed us to do so via text message. [redacted] said he "would not" and "could not" take the amount out of the invoice not that he would not retrieve the aerator that was not paid for. We apologize if there was a miscommunication through text message. We did however call the consumer before arriving to remove the aerator to let him know however there was no answer. We assumed this would not be a problem as the consumer already told us to come get it. As for the alarm- we did not silence the alarm, if the alarm did not go off then it must be malfunctioning.The accusations made against [redacted] go against everything our business stands for and we assure you they are invalid. We apologize for the miscommunication that has occurred and are hopeful that the consumer finds this response satisfactory. We are proud of our business and the service we provide and want to continue satisfying our customers!

We would like to apologize for any confusion or frustration the consumer has experienced, it is our intent to please customers and not disappoint. We did not charge nor install a 3/4 hp pump for this customer. Originally that was the plan however after discussion with the pump wholesaler it was...

determined that the system would work properly with a smaller pump. We installed and charged the customer for a 1/2 hp pump, the serial number and price on the invoice match a 1/2 hp pump. Therefore we will not be able to refund any money on the pump. As for the chlorine tablets, it is our standard practice to put three chlorine tablets in the system. If you put too many tablets in the tube they will become mushy and will not work properly. We do not want the consumer to be dissatisfied so we are willing to refund the $7.33 as requested. We are also more than happy to refund $87.67 for the inspection the consumer did not receive under his maintenance contract.Again we would like to apologize for any confusion and are hopeful that this settlement is satisfactory to the consumer.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11455318, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]