Andrew E. Hall & Son, Inc.

The customer requested emergency service to clear a clogged sink in the basement. A technician was dispatched shortly after with standard equipment to clear the drain. Upon further inspection it was determined that a larger snake was necessary due to the distance of the suspected
clog. Rather than leave the home to retrieve additional equipment (which would have been billable time) we requested another team member deliver it to the location. After receiving the larger equipment we were able to find some obstruction but the line remained slow draining. Further inspection with a camera was necessary to determine the cause and location of the additional blockage. The camera determined there was an abundance of tree roots in the exterior line. The line should be dug up and replaced to prevent further backup as advised to the customer. Later that evening *** *** who initially was ill mannered, called and apologized for his earlier conversation and requested we return to complete the replacement of the waste line This request was superseded by his fiance, who later called and wanted to know why the line was clogged and what the cause was but apparently did not want to pay for the cost of the camera to determine such. Her argument remained conflicting throughout the conversation and after hearing her uncertainty I thought it better to bill for the work that had been previously completed and not to further involve myself in additional repairs We advised the customer to seek another plumber to repair the waste line, as the line is compromised and will continue to cause backups into their home if not addressed. I am not willing to make a reduction in the invoiced amount and have filed a suit in small claims court against the customer for their alleged non-payment

The customer requested emergency service to clear a clogged sink in the basement.? A technician was dispatched shortly after with standard equipment to clear the drain.? Upon further inspection it was determined that a larger snake was necessary due to the distance of the suspected
clog.? Rather than leave the home to retrieve additional equipment (which would have been billable time) we requested another team member deliver it to the location.? After receiving the larger equipment we were able to find some obstruction but the line remained slow draining.? Further inspection with a camera was necessary to determine the cause and location of the additional blockage.? The camera determined there was an abundance of tree roots in the exterior line.? The line should be dug up and replaced to prevent further backup as advised to the customer.? ? Later that evening *** *** who initially was ill mannered, called and apologized for his earlier conversation and requested we return to complete the replacement of the waste line? This request was superseded by his fiance, who later called and wanted to know why the line was clogged and what the cause was but apparently did not want to pay for the cost of the camera to determine such.? Her argument remained conflicting throughout the conversation and after hearing her uncertainty I thought it better to bill for the work that had been previously completed and not to further involve myself in additional repairs? We advised the customer to seek another plumber to repair the waste line, as the line is compromised and will continue to cause backups into their home if not addressed.? I am not willing to make a reduction in the invoiced amount and have filed a suit in small claims court against the customer for their alleged non-payment.?

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Responseto Hall plumbing  22 Nov 2014The plumbing company invoices for 7/18/14 and 10/14/14were signed by me and the work done is not in dispute. The fact I was charged a“flat rate” both times and not for labor plus parts (which I was quoted at thetime I requested the service) is the problem. Labor plus parts and a “flatrate” are not the same. It is unreasonable to think that I would know theycharged a “flat-rate” and not labor plus parts unless they told me.The Agreement for service, which I signed states in part (fullcopies have been provided).1. All service calls will incur a one hour minimum chargeof $125.00 per hour. 2. Customer agrees to pay for all materials supplied toperform services requested.There is no mention of a “flat rate” charge in thecompany’s Agreement for Service or is it mentioned any place on the list ofwork done  Both invoices describe workdone and parts (materials) used; this is consistent with line two of the “agreement”and what I agreed to. On both “agreements” prices of $49.70 (for 7/18) and $48.50(for 10/14) appear; these charges were not on the documents when I signed them.Although, I was not provided a copy of the 7/18 document I did make a copy ofthe 10/14 document and there is no $48.50 on my copy. I find it a bit unusualthat a business ask a customer to sign a document and doesn’t provide a copyfor them.When I discussed both bills with Hall’s billingdepartment: they asked what I wanted to pay and both times I ask to know theprice of the parts (the price of the parts is still an unanswered question).How could I say what I owed until I knew the price of the parts? As far as thelabor charge on 7/18 I told the billing department I was sure they were hereless than 1 hour (I had checked my watch for their arrival and departuretimes); one half hour’s labor was removed from the bill by mutual agreement. I paidall bills in a timely manner; to avoid being in violation of item 4) of the “Agreement”and is not an admission the bills were correct.By their “agreements”, which they provided and I signed, Iagreed to pay for Labor plus parts (material).In the documents there is nomention of a “flat rate’! If they wanted to charge me a “flat-rate” or anyother charge, these charges should have been disclosed before I authorized theservice not when they sent me the bill. The “flat-rate” charge was neverdisclosed until after the service on 10/14. This may explain their unwillingnessto give me the prices of the parts used.  The terms of our agreement (as explained to me by HallPlumbing representative before I authorized either service call) I was to pay forlabor and parts. For Hall plumbing to unilaterally switch from charging for laborplus parts to a “flat-rate” at billing is, to me, a deceptive practice.

I acknowledge the customers concerns and have made numerous attempts to satisfy his request because the hours spent corresponding back and forth do not warrant the minimal charge.  I have already responded to this complaint in several conversations, even attaching signed work orders that conflict with the customers statement on the labor charge but still issued a credit previously.  I have given him the option of paying any amount of money, $1.00 would have sufficed, providing he agrees to utilize the services of another company going forward.  I do a very good business, go above and beyond for my customers and do not need or want customers that try and strong arm their way out of paying every bill after the agreed service has been performed.  Once again in attempt to address the concerns please tell me what you want to pay or what you feel is fair according to [redacted]" standards.  Since you have already paid the bills in full I will agree to issue a refund in the amount requested, again providing you do not utilize my services in the future.

Please review the attached work orders for services performed on 7/18/14 as well as 10/14/14, both signed by Mr. Hawley.  I have also attached copies of the paid invoices for your review.  As you will see the customer called after the visit disputing the labor time (which he signed off...

on)  but was issued a 1/2 hour credit as a courtesy anyway.    On the second visit, the customer again called to dispute the charges.  He stated he was not aware of our billing policy and did not agree with the flat rate cost of material invoiced.   As described in our letter to Mr. Hawley, many of our plumbing services are billed at a "flat rate."  This is standard to the plumbing industry and utilized by most plumbers.  We once again extended a courtesy to Mr. Hawley in writing as well as via telephone, offering a reduction in the material cost and allowing the customer to pay whatever he felt was fair.