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] ***
Unfortunately, our version of events differ from that of Mr***It is correct that our technician was not able to gain access on his first visit, thus the reason for our $service callAs far as I'm concerned that's where the conversation should end --- the $service call was due to our lack of accessHowever I will address the remainder of Mr***'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 accurateThis particular technician is not the only one with the equipment, and did not represent to the customer otherwiseFollowing is a list of our attempts to contact the customer on 9/11: 12: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 dayAt 1: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 dayAt 3: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 technicianThe customer indicates that he wants the $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 availableWhen our field manager called to try and explain that the $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
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Apollo has put me in for collections to collect for the day they broke their cable in my lineA 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]
First, let me respond to the customer's recent rejectionA main sewer line is not designed to encourage root intrusionRoots intrude into a line when the line has been compromised, either by a slipped fitting, cracked fitting, offset, break in the line etcIt is true that "they are readily removed (with no harm inflicted on the trees)" but this still is indicative of a compromised lineAs such, when the line was camera'd on 12/11/the technician found a break in the lineAnd 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-no break in the line was discovered by Apollo." Our invoice # [redacted] states: "Scoped at no additional charge finding a break holding water about ft in lineLocated at edge of front yard at ft in depth." "The fact is that the Apollo tech assured his rooter has gone feet(Even though it's only 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 sureBut it still doesn't change the fact that the line was compromisedIt certainly had no bearing on the cable getting stuck in the line "The obstruction the camera encountered at 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 feet "The cable broke because of incompetenceIt didn't break because of what it ran into in the lineBut 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 dirtA cable won’t snap off due to getting bound up in roots, or whatever else may be in the lineAnd honestly, I’m not even sure if it’s possible for a cable to double back on itself in that size pipeIf 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 rootsEven a chimp would suspect that wouldn’t work or even how?” I’m not quite sure what this meansIn your previous paragraph, you indicated you were given options to deal with the root intrusionOption 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 properlyThe third option was the only one that would require regular (suggested annually) attention to hopefully PREVENT future backupsI 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
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] ***
Unfortunately, our version of events differ from that of Mr***It is correct that our technician was not able to gain access on his first visit, thus the reason for our $service callAs far as I'm concerned that's where the conversation should end --- the $service call was due to our lack of accessHowever I will address the remainder of Mr***'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 accurateThis particular technician is not the only one with the equipment, and did not represent to the customer otherwiseFollowing is a list of our attempts to contact the customer on 9/11: 12: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 dayAt 1: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 dayAt 3: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 technicianThe customer indicates that he wants the $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 availableWhen our field manager called to try and explain that the $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
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Apollo has put me in for collections to collect for the day they broke their cable in my lineA 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]
First, let me respond to the customer's recent rejectionA main sewer line is not designed to encourage root intrusionRoots intrude into a line when the line has been compromised, either by a slipped fitting, cracked fitting, offset, break in the line etcIt is true that "they are readily removed (with no harm inflicted on the trees)" but this still is indicative of a compromised lineAs such, when the line was camera'd on 12/11/the technician found a break in the lineAnd 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-no break in the line was discovered by Apollo." Our invoice # [redacted] states: "Scoped at no additional charge finding a break holding water about ft in lineLocated at edge of front yard at ft in depth." "The fact is that the Apollo tech assured his rooter has gone feet(Even though it's only 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 sureBut it still doesn't change the fact that the line was compromisedIt certainly had no bearing on the cable getting stuck in the line "The obstruction the camera encountered at 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 feet "The cable broke because of incompetenceIt didn't break because of what it ran into in the lineBut 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 dirtA cable won’t snap off due to getting bound up in roots, or whatever else may be in the lineAnd honestly, I’m not even sure if it’s possible for a cable to double back on itself in that size pipeIf 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 rootsEven a chimp would suspect that wouldn’t work or even how?” I’m not quite sure what this meansIn your previous paragraph, you indicated you were given options to deal with the root intrusionOption 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 properlyThe third option was the only one that would require regular (suggested annually) attention to hopefully PREVENT future backupsI 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