BDR Solutions

We have already been in contact with this customer. I realize he is not happy about the owners decision perhaps doesn't understand but these charges are justified and the issue has been address. The customer will not be receiving his money back because we did do the work. I am attaching the... correspondence for your convenience. There are 3 attachments Sally K***, Office Mgr. - [redacted]

***
On March 20,
we were called to the property in question for a blocked sewerAs you can
see by the enclosed copy of the invoice the sewer was blocked at
approximately
75'Then on April 10th we were called again for the same problem, we went
out again and opened the blockage at no additional charge to the customer,
however at this point we suggested to camera the sewer line to see what the
problem was as we couldn't get the snake past this approximately 70' spot
either timeThe homeowner agreed so on 4/we sent a camera technician to do
said jobThe camera showed a spot at 40'and a spot at 70' which the camera
could not get pastBoth spots appeared to be protruding gaskets from the
schedule sewer pipesThe technician then told her that these spots should
be dug and repaired because if not the sewer would continue to blockWe
charged the homeowner for the unblocking the sewer and to camera the
sewerBoth charges are legitimateA copy of the video was given to the
homeownerAs for the homeowner and the contractor installing a whole new sewer
line that was their doingThe video clearly shows two bad spots not an entire
bad sewer lineA copy of the video can be sent to Revdex.com if you wantAs for the
terra cotta spur being bad in the street we would have no knowledge of this
because as previously stated we could not get the snake or the camera past 70'Hoping these
addresses all the issues I remain at your disposal for further questionsSincerely,
*** ***
**/***

We have already been in contact with this customer. I realize he is not happy about the owners decision perhaps doesn't understand but these charges are justified and the issue has been address. The customer will not be receiving his money back because we did do the work. I am attaching the...

correspondence for your convenience. There are 3 attachments Sally K[redacted],
Office Mgr. - [redacted]
[redacted]

Review: A request to complete an inspection and fill out a report with details on what needs to be done and the cost of the damages was requested along with an invoice from, [redacted], one of the representatives of this company on 02/12/2013. She had confirmed that she would send them through, and we had only received an invoice on that date. Tried to follow up with [redacted], but was advised that she was out of the office, but they would leave a message. Called back on 02/15/2013 and spoke with another representative, [redacted]. He advised that the report would not be provided until payment was provided, so my company worked out sending payment to this company. We have been following up almost daily and have either been receiving comments that the people that I am trying to reach is out of the office and will call me back (no return calls ever provided, aside from the initial call I received from [redacted] on 02/12/2013), or that they will be sending the report over today, inwhich the report never came.

I have attempted to escalate the matter with the Corporate Franchising office of [redacted] and was advised that they would try to resolve the matter. I still had to follow up with [redacted] after that to see what is the continuous delay on 02/28/2013, and was advised that I did receive the report, and that the following that was provided on the invoice was the "detailed" report, "Job description: CAMERA SWER LN BSMNT TO ST SWER SUGGST CHG CAS T IRON INSIDE HOME TO PLASTIC VERY THIN TERRACOTTA TO ST IN GOOD CONDITION CAMERA." I advised [redacted] that we assumed that this was the just the invoice as this provided the payment information, and this was not descriptive on what exactly was wrong with the septic system or what needed to be done, and the costs needed to complete it, as well as the confirmation from [redacted] that I would not receive a report until payment was provided on the invoice.

After reviewing this with [redacted], he had confirmed that he would get me the report no later than 03/01/2013. We still have not receive the report at this time, and our client has cancelled the work order, so we have paid for a service that we can not longer receive reimbursement for.Desired Settlement: We would request that we receive the total amount paid for the service ($185.00) issued on 02/14/2013 and confirmed that was received on 02/19/2013.

Business

Response:

Please see attached

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: we are unable to receive reimbursement on our end for the report, as we have advised that the client has cancelled this work order. Our company is out of the funds that we provided in advance to [redacted] for the report that was not provided in a timely manner as requested numerous times. The work order was cancelled back in February, and we have just received the report on 03/25/2013.

We would like to request reimbursement of the funds provided in advance, please.

Regards,

Business

Response:

We stated several times that the report information was on the invoice. I don't see why my company should reimburse anything as the inspection was done & the information was on the invoice that same day.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: we had received the invoice with the very few details on what took place at the property. We never considered this a report, as there was very limited information provided and there was nothing to state what needed to be done at the property specifically with costs, or that no work was needed at the property after the inspection was completed. If we had received the requested details within a reasonable time frame before we had to follow up with Revdex.com the work order would not have been cancelled and our company would not be out of the funds provided in advance.

The report was not even provided in a reasonable time frame from when we submitted a formal complaint on Revdex.com site. We didn't received any kind of formal report with more details until late March. This was provided too long after the cancellation for our clients to even reconsider allowing us to provide results for review for possible payment.

We are also out the funds that we have to pay our vendor that allowed access to this company to complete the inspection. We are not requesting those funds, we are simply requesting reimbursement for the funds that we provide for the actual written report that we requested numerous times.

We will not be satisfied with the outcome unless we receive reimbursement for the funds we had provided in advance, as our client also would never have accepted the original invoice as a report, and we never did either.

Regards,

Review: I initially contacted Roto-Rooter to resolve a backed up sewer line at my rented property on [redacted] in [redacted], PA.

A technician from Roto-rooter was able to clear the blockage at 75'-3" on 3/20/14 using a power snake, but in less than two weeks, the problem returned. Still under warranty, I called the technician who returned the next day to again clear out the blockage. At this time, we were advised by the technician to contact Roto-rooter again, and schedule a camera and locator service to identify exactly what and where the problem was. I called that day, spoke with a woman at Roto-Rooter who scheduled the service for 4/15/14 and at that time, I verified with her on the phone that this service would guarantee to identify exactly what and where the problem was, she confirmed that it would, and I agreed to payment prior to service. On 4/15, the camera and locator service was completed. I spoke to the man who performed the service before and after completion, he told me there were two breaks in the line at two separate locations, wires running through my line in another, and that it would need to be repaired.

I immediately called a contractor and scheduled the excavation and replacement of the sewer line based on Roto Rooter’s findings and recommendation. In summary, the contractor called me after completing the excavation and asked that I come on site, as there were no breaks in the line and nothing to replace. I again spoke to the technician at Roto-rooter, who advised me then that if there were no breaks in the line, it must be the gaskets inside the pipe had rolled and that the line needed to be replaced. He offered me his personal guarantee that there was something wrong with my line. I reluctantly gave the contractor the go-ahead to replace the pipe.

Three days after replacing the line, the sewer backed up again. The problem was never on my property, the terracotta main that connected to my line was broken. At the end of this entire ordeal, there was no reason to dig up or replace my sewer line as the issue was never my pipe.

I paid for a service that was guaranteed to find exactly what and where the problem was with my sewer line. I was informed I had two breaks and wires running through my line. That was incorrect. After I dug up the line to find the pipe intact, I was then told the rubber gaskets must have rolled, and that was the issue. That was also incorrect.

I have contacted the manager several times who claims he spoke to the owner of the company. He never once returned my phone calls, but did speak to me every time I called him. He advised me that as per the owner, they are in no way responsible for the incorrect evaluation of the technician which resulted in the unnecessary excavation and replacement of my sewer line.Desired Settlement: I am requesting a refund of the locator and camera service cost provided by Roto-Rooter, in addition to reimbursement of the contractor cost to dig and replace the sewer line.

Business

Response:

[redacted]On March 20,

2014 we were called to the property in question for a blocked sewer. As you can

see by the enclosed copy of the invoice the sewer was blocked at approximately

75'. Then on April 10th we were called again for the same problem, we went

out again and opened the blockage at no additional charge to the customer,

however at this point we suggested to camera the sewer line to see what the

problem was as we couldn't get the snake past this approximately 70' spot

either time. The homeowner agreed so on 4/15 we sent a camera technician to do

said job. The camera showed a spot at 40'and a spot at 70' which the camera

could not get past. Both spots appeared to be protruding gaskets from the

schedule 35 sewer pipes. The technician then told her that these 2 spots should

be dug and repaired because if not the sewer would continue to block. We

charged the homeowner for the unblocking the sewer and to camera the

sewer. Both charges are legitimate. A copy of the video was given to the

homeowner. As for the homeowner and the contractor installing a whole new sewer

line that was their doing. The video clearly shows two bad spots not an entire

bad sewer line. A copy of the video can be sent to Revdex.com if you want.As for the

terra cotta spur being bad in the street we would have no knowledge of this

because as previously stated we could not get the snake or the camera past 70'.

Hoping these

addresses all the issues I remain at your disposal for further questions.

Sincerely,

**/[redacted]