THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CASE # ***,
SUBMITTED BY *** *** OF *** *** *** ***, ***, ** ***
NO RECORD
OF SERVICE TO MR***
OR HIS ADDRESS IN OR WAS FOUND. I DID NOT CHECK THE OTHER YEARS DNB
PLUMBING HAS BEEN IN OPERATION. I DID
FIND A MATCH OF HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH *** *** OF *** *** *** ***,
*** ** ***, WHOM DNB PLUMBING
SERVICED TWICE IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR
MRS***
CONTACTED DNB PLUMBING SOMETIME DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF NOVEMBER, LAMENTING
THAT SHE HAD SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE PREVIOUS TWO MONTHS ASKED HER SON TO FIX
HER DRIPPING KITCHEN FAUCET, BUT HE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO GO TO HER HOME. DURING THE CONVERSATION SHE VOLUNTEERED THAT
SHE IS YEARS OLD AND INQUIRED WHAT DNB WOULD CHARGE HER TO FIX HER
FAUCET. AFTER SHE ANSWERED SEVERAL
QUESTIONS DNB DETERMINED THAT HER FAUCET WAS LIKELY UNDER MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY
WITH ***WE PROVIDED ***’S TELEPHONE
NUMBER AND SUGGESTED SHE CONTACT *** TO OBTAIN THE PARTS AT NO CHARGE AS THAT
WAS CHEAPER THAN PAYING DNB TO PROVIDE THE PARTS, AND SHE WOULD ONLY BE CHARGED
OUR MINIMUM TRIP CHARGE OF $TO INSTALL THE FREE PARTS. SHE CALLED ON NOVEMBER 10, INDICATING SHE HAD
RECEIVED THE PARTS FROM *** AND WANTED DNB TO INSTALL THEM FOR HER AT THE
PREVIOUSLY QUOTED $LABOR CHARGE. SHE
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 11. ON THAT DATE SHE
PAID THE $BY CHECK #***
OUR PLUMBER
INSTALLED HER PARTS BUT STILL THE FAUCET DRIPPED. THE PLUMBER RECOMMENDED THAT SHE CONTACT ***
A SECOND TIME AND ADVISE THAT THE REBUILD OF THE FAUCET WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND
ASK THAT THEY FORWARD TO HER AN ENTIRE REPLACEMENT FAUCET UNDER HER WARRANTY
WITH ***. SHE WAS ADVISED BY DNB THAT
THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL LABOR CHARGE WHEN THE NEW FAUCET CAME IN BECAUSE
DNB HAD NOT PROVIDED THE PARTS, AND THEREFORE COULD NOT WARRANTY THEM. THAT AMOUNT WAS A REDUCED $DUE TO HER
AGE, DNB’S STANDARD LABOR RATE FOR A KITCHEN FAUCET INSTALLATION BEING A FLAT
$
SHE CONTACTED
*** AGAIN AND WHEN SHE RECEIVED THE PACKAGE FROM THEM, SHE CALLED DNB PLUMBING
ANNOUNCING THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED HER NEW FAUCET; SHE SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER
AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THE SAME PLUMBER TO INSTALL THE FAUCET. THE PLUMBER FOUND THAT RATHER THAN A NEW
FAUCET, *** CHOSE TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT PARTS OF WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY SENT
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL SPRAY HEAD. THE
PLUMBER INSTALLED THE PARTS PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER AND CLEANED THE VALVE
AS REQUESTED BY MRS*** ALL OF WHICH TOOK LONGER THAN IT WOULD HAVE
TAKEN TO INSTALL A NEW FAUCET, BUT WE HONORED THE $LABOR CHARGE QUOTED TO
MRS***. HER $CHECK IN
PAYMENT WAS #***
MRS***
CALLED A WEEK LATER ON MONDAY MORNING, DECEMBER STATING THAT HER FAUCET’S HOT
HANDLE WAS NOW TURNING WITHOUT STOPPING AND SHE HAD TO SHUT THE HOT WATER OFF
UNDER HER SINK TO STOP THE CONTANT FLOW OF HOT WATER AT HER FAUCET AND ALSO NOW
THE COLD WATER WAS DRIPPING AT THE FAUCET.
SHE WANTED A PLUMBER BACK TO SERVICE HER FAUCET. SHE WAS ADVISED THAT WE WOULD SEND A PLUMBER
AND IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE LABOR PART OF THE TRANSACTION, THERE WOULD
BE NO CHARGE, BUT IF EITHER ISSUE WAS DUE TO THE PARTS AGAIN PROVIDED BY THE
MANUFACTURER, THERE WOULD BE A LABOR CHARGE FOR THAT AS LIKE PREVIOUSLY, WE ARE
UNABLE TO WARRANTY PARTS WE DO NOT PROVIDE.
SHE WAS UNHAPPY ABOUT THAT. HER
SON, MR***, CALLED THAT AFTERNOON AND HE WAS ADVISED LIKEWISE. HE WANTED THE PLUMBER TO CALL HIM. MR*** WAS INFORMED WE CAN ASK THE PLUMBER
TO CALL HIM BUT CANNOT FORCE HIM TO MAKE THE CALL FROM HIS PERSONAL CELL PHONE,
BUT AS AN OPTION MR*** WAS OFFERED THAT THE PLUMBER COULD CALL HIM FROM OUR
OFFICE THE NEXT TIME HE IS IN BUT ALL OF OUR PLUMBERS ONLY COME IN ONCE OR
TWICE A WEEK. HE WAS NOT RECEPTIVE TO
THAT OPTION BUT DEMANDED THAT THE PLUMBER RETURN TO HIS MOTHER’S HOME, WITHOUT
PAYMENT DUE
DNB HOME SERVICES
LEFT A MESSAGE ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON AT MRS***’S PHONE NUMBER STATING
AN APPOINTMENT HAD BEEN PENCILLED INTO WEDNESDAY’S SCHEDULE WITH AN ARRIVAL
TIME BETWEEN 8:A.MAND 1:P.M., PENDING HER RETURN CALL TO THE OFFICE
ACCEPTING THAT TIME SLOT, BUT AGAIN OUTLINING THE NO CHARGE / POSSIBLE
CHARGE. SHE WAS CALLED AGAIN LATER IN
THE AFTERNOON TO SEE IF SHE WANTED THE APPOINTMENT AND SHE SAID SHE DID AS LONG
AS SHE DID NOT HAVE TO PAY AND SHE DID NOT WANT THE SAME PLUMBER TO RETURN
A TELEPHONE
MESSAGE WAS LEFT AT 9:A.MON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, FOR MRS*** TO
PLEASE CALL DNB’S OFFICE AS THE MASTER PLUMBER WOULD LIKE TO GO TO
HER HOME. A SECOND MESSAGE LEFT AT
12:16P ALSO RECEIVED NO RESPONSE. A
THIRD ATTEMPT BY DNB HOME SERVICES WAS MADE AND MRS*** AGREED TO MEET
WITH THE MASTER PLUMBER, WHO IN TURN CONTACTED *** ON HER BEHALF AND ARRANGED
FOR A NEW VALVE, AT NO EXPENSE TO HER, TO BE SHIPPED FROM THE MANFACTURER TO
MRS***. IT HAS BEEN INSTALLED
BY DNB HOME SERVICES AT NO LABOR EXPENSE TO HER AND HER KITCHEN FAUCET NO LONGER HAS ANY LEAKS
We serviced [redacted] through a warranty company that has very strict rules about any areas in the home that appear to have mold growing. She was made aware that access would have to be made which her warranty company informed her that would not be covered. She was told to call them back after the...
access was made. When we returned to the home to look at the leak, we had to send pictures of the interior of the wall to her warranty company. The pictures showed excessive darkening areas that appeared to be mold in appearance. The warranty company called us back and stated that she would have to test the mold prior to any work being permitted or authorized at her home. This service call started on May 30th. After we spoke to her warranty company, they made us aware that they would speak to the homeowner and make her aware that they would require the test.On June 7th, we received an email from the homeowner which showed a test and the results. These were forwarded to the warranty company and we were informed that any further work at this home was suspended until the mold has been resolved. I briefly read the test and it clearly states that the mold should be cleaned immediately prior to any further disturbance in that area. It also stated that there was some issues with the family being in the home.Unfortunately, we have very strict rules to abide to when it comes to any appearance of mold. We have to abide by the guidelines of the warranty contract which they are our customer and the only person that can give us autho to pay for expenses at a home. I have read the report again and it very clearly states the issues with the mold exposure in this home. It is up to the homeowner to send you that report, if she wishes. Staying in a hotel until this issue was resolved was probably the best decision that she made. I can not reimburse people for issues at their home that was a leak that had been leaking for a long time and caused further issues when not taken care of in a timely manner. We on the other hand, will not continue to do further repairs when advised by a experienced mold tech to stop further disturbance. If [redacted] would give us permission, we can send you pics and the mold testing report that we have on file. Thank you, Val, ownerDNB Home Services
THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO CASE # ***,
SUBMITTED BY *** *** OF *** *** *** ***, ***, ** ***
NO RECORD
OF SERVICE TO MR***
OR HIS ADDRESS IN OR WAS FOUND. I DID NOT CHECK THE OTHER YEARS DNB
PLUMBING HAS BEEN IN OPERATION. I DID
FIND A MATCH OF HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH *** *** OF *** *** *** ***,
*** ** ***, WHOM DNB PLUMBING
SERVICED TWICE IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR
MRS***
CONTACTED DNB PLUMBING SOMETIME DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF NOVEMBER, LAMENTING
THAT SHE HAD SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE PREVIOUS TWO MONTHS ASKED HER SON TO FIX
HER DRIPPING KITCHEN FAUCET, BUT HE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO GO TO HER HOME. DURING THE CONVERSATION SHE VOLUNTEERED THAT
SHE IS YEARS OLD AND INQUIRED WHAT DNB WOULD CHARGE HER TO FIX HER
FAUCET. AFTER SHE ANSWERED SEVERAL
QUESTIONS DNB DETERMINED THAT HER FAUCET WAS LIKELY UNDER MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY
WITH ***WE PROVIDED ***’S TELEPHONE
NUMBER AND SUGGESTED SHE CONTACT *** TO OBTAIN THE PARTS AT NO CHARGE AS THAT
WAS CHEAPER THAN PAYING DNB TO PROVIDE THE PARTS, AND SHE WOULD ONLY BE CHARGED
OUR MINIMUM TRIP CHARGE OF $TO INSTALL THE FREE PARTS. SHE CALLED ON NOVEMBER 10, INDICATING SHE HAD
RECEIVED THE PARTS FROM *** AND WANTED DNB TO INSTALL THEM FOR HER AT THE
PREVIOUSLY QUOTED $LABOR CHARGE. SHE
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 11. ON THAT DATE SHE
PAID THE $BY CHECK #***
OUR PLUMBER
INSTALLED HER PARTS BUT STILL THE FAUCET DRIPPED. THE PLUMBER RECOMMENDED THAT SHE CONTACT ***
A SECOND TIME AND ADVISE THAT THE REBUILD OF THE FAUCET WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND
ASK THAT THEY FORWARD TO HER AN ENTIRE REPLACEMENT FAUCET UNDER HER WARRANTY
WITH ***. SHE WAS ADVISED BY DNB THAT
THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL LABOR CHARGE WHEN THE NEW FAUCET CAME IN BECAUSE
DNB HAD NOT PROVIDED THE PARTS, AND THEREFORE COULD NOT WARRANTY THEM. THAT AMOUNT WAS A REDUCED $DUE TO HER
AGE, DNB’S STANDARD LABOR RATE FOR A KITCHEN FAUCET INSTALLATION BEING A FLAT
$
SHE CONTACTED
*** AGAIN AND WHEN SHE RECEIVED THE PACKAGE FROM THEM, SHE CALLED DNB PLUMBING
ANNOUNCING THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED HER NEW FAUCET; SHE SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER
AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THE SAME PLUMBER TO INSTALL THE FAUCET. THE PLUMBER FOUND THAT RATHER THAN A NEW
FAUCET, *** CHOSE TO PROVIDE REPLACEMENT PARTS OF WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY SENT
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL SPRAY HEAD. THE
PLUMBER INSTALLED THE PARTS PROVIDED BY THE MANUFACTURER AND CLEANED THE VALVE
AS REQUESTED BY MRS*** ALL OF WHICH TOOK LONGER THAN IT WOULD HAVE
TAKEN TO INSTALL A NEW FAUCET, BUT WE HONORED THE $LABOR CHARGE QUOTED TO
MRS***. HER $CHECK IN
PAYMENT WAS #***
MRS***
CALLED A WEEK LATER ON MONDAY MORNING, DECEMBER STATING THAT HER FAUCET’S HOT
HANDLE WAS NOW TURNING WITHOUT STOPPING AND SHE HAD TO SHUT THE HOT WATER OFF
UNDER HER SINK TO STOP THE CONTANT FLOW OF HOT WATER AT HER FAUCET AND ALSO NOW
THE COLD WATER WAS DRIPPING AT THE FAUCET.
SHE WANTED A PLUMBER BACK TO SERVICE HER FAUCET. SHE WAS ADVISED THAT WE WOULD SEND A PLUMBER
AND IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE LABOR PART OF THE TRANSACTION, THERE WOULD
BE NO CHARGE, BUT IF EITHER ISSUE WAS DUE TO THE PARTS AGAIN PROVIDED BY THE
MANUFACTURER, THERE WOULD BE A LABOR CHARGE FOR THAT AS LIKE PREVIOUSLY, WE ARE
UNABLE TO WARRANTY PARTS WE DO NOT PROVIDE.
SHE WAS UNHAPPY ABOUT THAT. HER
SON, MR***, CALLED THAT AFTERNOON AND HE WAS ADVISED LIKEWISE. HE WANTED THE PLUMBER TO CALL HIM. MR*** WAS INFORMED WE CAN ASK THE PLUMBER
TO CALL HIM BUT CANNOT FORCE HIM TO MAKE THE CALL FROM HIS PERSONAL CELL PHONE,
BUT AS AN OPTION MR*** WAS OFFERED THAT THE PLUMBER COULD CALL HIM FROM OUR
OFFICE THE NEXT TIME HE IS IN BUT ALL OF OUR PLUMBERS ONLY COME IN ONCE OR
TWICE A WEEK. HE WAS NOT RECEPTIVE TO
THAT OPTION BUT DEMANDED THAT THE PLUMBER RETURN TO HIS MOTHER’S HOME, WITHOUT
PAYMENT DUE
DNB HOME SERVICES
LEFT A MESSAGE ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON AT MRS***’S PHONE NUMBER STATING
AN APPOINTMENT HAD BEEN PENCILLED INTO WEDNESDAY’S SCHEDULE WITH AN ARRIVAL
TIME BETWEEN 8:A.MAND 1:P.M., PENDING HER RETURN CALL TO THE OFFICE
ACCEPTING THAT TIME SLOT, BUT AGAIN OUTLINING THE NO CHARGE / POSSIBLE
CHARGE. SHE WAS CALLED AGAIN LATER IN
THE AFTERNOON TO SEE IF SHE WANTED THE APPOINTMENT AND SHE SAID SHE DID AS LONG
AS SHE DID NOT HAVE TO PAY AND SHE DID NOT WANT THE SAME PLUMBER TO RETURN
A TELEPHONE
MESSAGE WAS LEFT AT 9:A.MON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, FOR MRS*** TO
PLEASE CALL DNB’S OFFICE AS THE MASTER PLUMBER WOULD LIKE TO GO TO
HER HOME. A SECOND MESSAGE LEFT AT
12:16P ALSO RECEIVED NO RESPONSE. A
THIRD ATTEMPT BY DNB HOME SERVICES WAS MADE AND MRS*** AGREED TO MEET
WITH THE MASTER PLUMBER, WHO IN TURN CONTACTED *** ON HER BEHALF AND ARRANGED
FOR A NEW VALVE, AT NO EXPENSE TO HER, TO BE SHIPPED FROM THE MANFACTURER TO
MRS***. IT HAS BEEN INSTALLED
BY DNB HOME SERVICES AT NO LABOR EXPENSE TO HER AND HER KITCHEN FAUCET NO LONGER HAS ANY LEAKS
We serviced [redacted] through a warranty company that has very strict rules about any areas in the home that appear to have mold growing. She was made aware that access would have to be made which her warranty company informed her that would not be covered. She was told to call them back after the...
access was made. When we returned to the home to look at the leak, we had to send pictures of the interior of the wall to her warranty company. The pictures showed excessive darkening areas that appeared to be mold in appearance. The warranty company called us back and stated that she would have to test the mold prior to any work being permitted or authorized at her home. This service call started on May 30th. After we spoke to her warranty company, they made us aware that they would speak to the homeowner and make her aware that they would require the test.On June 7th, we received an email from the homeowner which showed a test and the results. These were forwarded to the warranty company and we were informed that any further work at this home was suspended until the mold has been resolved. I briefly read the test and it clearly states that the mold should be cleaned immediately prior to any further disturbance in that area. It also stated that there was some issues with the family being in the home.Unfortunately, we have very strict rules to abide to when it comes to any appearance of mold. We have to abide by the guidelines of the warranty contract which they are our customer and the only person that can give us autho to pay for expenses at a home. I have read the report again and it very clearly states the issues with the mold exposure in this home. It is up to the homeowner to send you that report, if she wishes. Staying in a hotel until this issue was resolved was probably the best decision that she made. I can not reimburse people for issues at their home that was a leak that had been leaking for a long time and caused further issues when not taken care of in a timely manner. We on the other hand, will not continue to do further repairs when advised by a experienced mold tech to stop further disturbance. If [redacted] would give us permission, we can send you pics and the mold testing report that we have on file. Thank you, Val, ownerDNB Home Services