Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Allow me to clarify some facts: The phone number given to Apollo for this call was my cell number. That is the number the tech phoned on Friday (twice) and I have the voicemail on my phone to back that up. When I phoned around 2PM on Monday inquiring why he had not shown up on time, I was told he was on an all day call and that they had called me earlier and let me know. When I asked them what number they called they said a number that was my home phone. I told them that number was not working and why didn't they call my cell. They stated that they did not have it. Well the cell is the number they called on before (Friday) and it was the number that was given to them. So for them to say they left a voicemail at the wrong number is no different than not calling at all. There mistake and they should own up to it.I do not know what their tech told them, but he CLEARLY told me that he was the only one that had that type of water jet and that is why he made the appointment for me on Monday. When I was offered a different tech to come out on Monday afternoon, I said I wanted the same one because he said he was the only one with that type of waterjet. The person on the phone ACKNOWLEDGED that. If in fact, they would have had another tech available with the same equipment I would have gladly had him come out. I did not know the tech why would I have insisted on him if I was not told he was the only one with the equipment? As it turned out, I had to take a day off of work to be there on Thursday.They are correct that I hung up on the supervisor. He could not or would not recognize that Apollo had done anything wrong. He just kept saying that they had phoned me and let me know the tech could not come. Calling the wrong number does not excuse them. There was no "I am sorry this happened and yes we made a mistake." They assumed no responsibility and offered zero in response. We would not be having these exchanges if they would have just said they were sorry it happened. Also, I did not say their supervisor was deflating. I said deflecting. There is a difference
Sincerely,
*** ***
In addition to the various reviews and complaints that Mr*** wrote, he also disputed the credit card chargeThat charge was reversed so there is no need for us to continue to respond to Mr***s complaintsWe consider the matter closed
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Apollo has put me in for collections to collect 135.00 for the day they broke their cable in my line. A bill was never presented to me that day and this event should the collection company submit it to the credit bureaus will damage my credit!!!Sincerely,[redacted]
Unfortunately, our version of events differ from that of Mr. [redacted]. It is correct that our technician was not able to gain access on his first visit, thus the reason for our $95 service call. As far as I'm concerned that's where the conversation should end --- the $95 service call was due to our lack...
of access. However I will address the remainder of Mr. [redacted]'s concerns. "Since he was the only person with a gas powered water jet, he said I should make the appointment with him." Our technician represents that this is not completely accurate. This particular technician is not the only one with the equipment, and did not represent to the customer otherwise. Following is a list of our attempts to contact the customer on 9/11: 12:10 pm, we called and left a message that the technician was not available that day, as he had landed on an emergency job that he was going to be on for the remainder of the day. At 1:57 pm the customer called, indicated that he did indeed want service today, but he also was insistent that it be with the original technician, even though we had explained that he would not be available that day. At 3:17 pm the customer again called back, we again explained that the technician would not be available that day, offered to send another technician, but the customer was again insistent that this technician had the specific equipment he wanted, and he wanted only that technician. The customer indicates that he wants the $95 service fee refunded because we missed our appointment on 9/11.We did offer to send another technician but the customer opted to reschedule for another day when the original technician was available. When our field manager called to try and explain that the $95 service fee related to our inability to gain access, rather than any scheduling issues, the customer hung up on him and later wrote "the supervisor was either very dense, or just very good at deflating." It quickly became apparent that we were not going to be able to come to an understanding or a resolution.
First, let me respond to the customer's recent rejection. A main sewer line is not designed to encourage root intrusion. Roots intrude into a line when the line has been compromised, either by a slipped fitting, cracked fitting, offset, break in the line etc. It is true that "they are readily removed (with no harm inflicted on the trees)" but this still is indicative of a compromised line. As such, when the line was camera'd on 12/11/15 the technician found a break in the line. And yes, the roots can continually be removed as preventative, but they will continue to grow back into that compromised line until the line is repaired.
"On 12-11-15 no break in the line was discovered by Apollo." Our invoice #[redacted] states: "Scoped at no additional charge finding a break holding water about 70 ft in line. Located at edge of front yard at 5 ft in depth."
"The fact is that the Apollo tech assured his rooter has gone 120 feet. (Even though it's only 90 feet to the center of the street!)" You are correct, this clearly was an error, whether it was a typographical error, or a miscalculation as to how far his cable went, we're not sure. But it still doesn't change the fact that the line was compromised. It certainly had no bearing on the cable getting stuck in the line.
"The obstruction the camera encountered at 70 feet was assumed to be loose material that would be expelled the first time the drain was used" I'm not sure where this assumption came from, as our invoice clearly indicates there is a break in the line at 70 feet.
"The cable broke because of incompetence. It didn't break because of what it ran into in the line. But rather it had doubled back and snapped." Normally when a cable snaps off, it’s because it has actually exited the pipe (through an offset, break, etc) and is digging itself into the dirt. A cable won’t snap off due to getting bound up in roots, or whatever else may be in the line. And honestly, I’m not even sure if it’s possible for a cable to double back on itself in that size pipe. If the cable did indeed double back on itself, it could have only done this after encountering something quite formidable, not simply roots in the line.
Now, let me respond to the letter we received after the initial Revdex.com complaint was closed (attached file).
“To add I must say it would never have occurred to me that the drain could be cabled as a ‘preventative’ to roots. Even a chimp would suspect that wouldn’t work or even how?” I’m not quite sure what this means. In your previous paragraph, you indicated you were given 3 options to deal with the root intrusion. Option 1: “a backhoe could be employed and a new drain (free of roots) could be installed.” Option 2: “The drain could be cleared of roots and a plastic liner could be installed in the line to prevent future root problems”. Both of these two options would, in effect, remove any roots from the line therefore not requiring the recurring cabling that ensued to maintain your system and keep it flowing properly. The third option was the only one that would require regular (suggested annually) attention to hopefully PREVENT future backups. I don’t know where you got the idea that cabling was a preventative to roots, especially if we recommended that you have the roots removed (by cabling) each year.
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Allow me to clarify some facts: The phone number given to Apollo for this call was my cell number. That is the number the tech phoned on Friday (twice) and I have the voicemail on my phone to back that up. When I phoned around 2PM on Monday inquiring why he had not shown up on time, I was told he was on an all day call and that they had called me earlier and let me know. When I asked them what number they called they said a number that was my home phone. I told them that number was not working and why didn't they call my cell. They stated that they did not have it. Well the cell is the number they called on before (Friday) and it was the number that was given to them. So for them to say they left a voicemail at the wrong number is no different than not calling at all. There mistake and they should own up to it.I do not know what their tech told them, but he CLEARLY told me that he was the only one that had that type of water jet and that is why he made the appointment for me on Monday. When I was offered a different tech to come out on Monday afternoon, I said I wanted the same one because he said he was the only one with that type of waterjet. The person on the phone ACKNOWLEDGED that. If in fact, they would have had another tech available with the same equipment I would have gladly had him come out. I did not know the tech why would I have insisted on him if I was not told he was the only one with the equipment? As it turned out, I had to take a day off of work to be there on Thursday.They are correct that I hung up on the supervisor. He could not or would not recognize that Apollo had done anything wrong. He just kept saying that they had phoned me and let me know the tech could not come. Calling the wrong number does not excuse them. There was no "I am sorry this happened and yes we made a mistake." They assumed no responsibility and offered zero in response. We would not be having these exchanges if they would have just said they were sorry it happened. Also, I did not say their supervisor was deflating. I said deflecting. There is a difference
Sincerely,
*** ***
In addition to the various reviews and complaints that Mr*** wrote, he also disputed the credit card chargeThat charge was reversed so there is no need for us to continue to respond to Mr***s complaintsWe consider the matter closed
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: The response was unsatisfactory.Sincerely,[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Apollo has put me in for collections to collect 135.00 for the day they broke their cable in my line. A bill was never presented to me that day and this event should the collection company submit it to the credit bureaus will damage my credit!!!Sincerely,[redacted]
Unfortunately, our version of events differ from that of Mr. [redacted]. It is correct that our technician was not able to gain access on his first visit, thus the reason for our $95 service call. As far as I'm concerned that's where the conversation should end --- the $95 service call was due to our lack...
of access. However I will address the remainder of Mr. [redacted]'s concerns. "Since he was the only person with a gas powered water jet, he said I should make the appointment with him." Our technician represents that this is not completely accurate. This particular technician is not the only one with the equipment, and did not represent to the customer otherwise. Following is a list of our attempts to contact the customer on 9/11: 12:10 pm, we called and left a message that the technician was not available that day, as he had landed on an emergency job that he was going to be on for the remainder of the day. At 1:57 pm the customer called, indicated that he did indeed want service today, but he also was insistent that it be with the original technician, even though we had explained that he would not be available that day. At 3:17 pm the customer again called back, we again explained that the technician would not be available that day, offered to send another technician, but the customer was again insistent that this technician had the specific equipment he wanted, and he wanted only that technician. The customer indicates that he wants the $95 service fee refunded because we missed our appointment on 9/11.We did offer to send another technician but the customer opted to reschedule for another day when the original technician was available. When our field manager called to try and explain that the $95 service fee related to our inability to gain access, rather than any scheduling issues, the customer hung up on him and later wrote "the supervisor was either very dense, or just very good at deflating." It quickly became apparent that we were not going to be able to come to an understanding or a resolution.
First, let me respond to the customer's recent rejection. A main sewer line is not designed to encourage root intrusion. Roots intrude into a line when the line has been compromised, either by a slipped fitting, cracked fitting, offset, break in the line etc. It is true that "they are readily removed (with no harm inflicted on the trees)" but this still is indicative of a compromised line. As such, when the line was camera'd on 12/11/15 the technician found a break in the line. And yes, the roots can continually be removed as preventative, but they will continue to grow back into that compromised line until the line is repaired.
"On 12-11-15 no break in the line was discovered by Apollo." Our invoice #[redacted] states: "Scoped at no additional charge finding a break holding water about 70 ft in line. Located at edge of front yard at 5 ft in depth."
"The fact is that the Apollo tech assured his rooter has gone 120 feet. (Even though it's only 90 feet to the center of the street!)" You are correct, this clearly was an error, whether it was a typographical error, or a miscalculation as to how far his cable went, we're not sure. But it still doesn't change the fact that the line was compromised. It certainly had no bearing on the cable getting stuck in the line.
"The obstruction the camera encountered at 70 feet was assumed to be loose material that would be expelled the first time the drain was used" I'm not sure where this assumption came from, as our invoice clearly indicates there is a break in the line at 70 feet.
"The cable broke because of incompetence. It didn't break because of what it ran into in the line. But rather it had doubled back and snapped." Normally when a cable snaps off, it’s because it has actually exited the pipe (through an offset, break, etc) and is digging itself into the dirt. A cable won’t snap off due to getting bound up in roots, or whatever else may be in the line. And honestly, I’m not even sure if it’s possible for a cable to double back on itself in that size pipe. If the cable did indeed double back on itself, it could have only done this after encountering something quite formidable, not simply roots in the line.
Now, let me respond to the letter we received after the initial Revdex.com complaint was closed (attached file).
“To add I must say it would never have occurred to me that the drain could be cabled as a ‘preventative’ to roots. Even a chimp would suspect that wouldn’t work or even how?” I’m not quite sure what this means. In your previous paragraph, you indicated you were given 3 options to deal with the root intrusion. Option 1: “a backhoe could be employed and a new drain (free of roots) could be installed.” Option 2: “The drain could be cleared of roots and a plastic liner could be installed in the line to prevent future root problems”. Both of these two options would, in effect, remove any roots from the line therefore not requiring the recurring cabling that ensued to maintain your system and keep it flowing properly. The third option was the only one that would require regular (suggested annually) attention to hopefully PREVENT future backups. I don’t know where you got the idea that cabling was a preventative to roots, especially if we recommended that you have the roots removed (by cabling) each year.