Borth-Wilson Plumbing & Remodeling

Review: I submitted a request of service through [redacted] as warranty work on 7/7/2015 and was assigned a service call with Borth-Wilson on 7/9/2015.

This issue was related to two leaking pipes behind the outside spigots of the house. While scheduling the service I explained the problem very clear to the secretary and was told the problem would be covered under warranty if the problem was not due to a freeze problem. Borth-Wilson indicated that a technician would have to visit to look at both the spigot and the inside of the house to determine the problem.

On 7/9/2015 the technician arrived as planned. The technician made the determination from looking at one spigot on the outside of the house that it was from winter freeze, even though their was not leaking water on the outside of the house at all. The technician did not assess the other spigot or enter my home to analysis.

With in less then 5 mins from pulling in my driveway he quoted me over $800 to replace the spigots. When I questions how he knew that from not even looking at them he was rude and I asked him to leave. Upon leaving he said that I owed $70 for the service call. I proceeded to tell him to bill me as no work was done and the problem was not properly assessed.

I thought that Borth-Wilson would have thought through the billing on this and after 8 weeks I finally received a bill from them, and two weeks ago they have reported it to [redacted] which is putting a hold on any warranty service requests.Desired Settlement: I simply would like the service fee waived since one, there was a communication issue initial on your part and two, the technician did not even do any assessing while there. You could have solved this issue last week when I called your office instead of being completely unprofessional to me.

Business
Response:
We apologize that Mr. [redacted] was not satisfied with our service. I would like to begin by clarifying our process. Our [redacted]) first called Mr. [redacted] to schedule repair through [redacted]. Anytime there are coverage concerns due to the warranty, I as the [redacted], discuss with the homeowner prior to our technician coming out. I called back and spoke with him to get any further details on what was leaking. He explained to me that his lawn faucets were leaking into the basement. I discussed with him that the warranty does not cover any damages due to freezing, nor the lawn faucets themselves. At that time, Mr. [redacted] said that the shut-off valves inside the house were leaking which I told him should be covered. Our technician arrived at the home and inspected both valves inside and outside the home. He determined that the lawn faucets themselves were causing the leak into the basement and would not be covered by the warranty. He then quoted approximately $300-400 for replacement of the rear faucet and $250 for the front. The homeowner did not want the work done at the time. Since the repairs are not covered, [redacted]'s policy requires the homeowner to then pay any standard charges as determined by the contractor. We billed a service call charge of $70 plus tax which is standard for any home visit.At Borth-Wilson, we strive to keep our customers for a lifetime and in order to satisfy Mr. [redacted], we will eliminate this charge. We would suggest that he refers to [redacted]'s policy prior to scheduling any additional work.Thank  you,[redacted]Borth-Wilson, Inc.[redacted]

We recently had our master bathroom remodeled by Borth-Wilson in Brookfield, WI.
The quote that was given to us was right in line with what our budget was, unlike the other two quotes we received. The initial advice [redacted] gave us was honest and helpful.
I met with [redacted] to confirm the initial design. The whole process of finalizing the design and choosing everything that went into the bathroom was a smooth, pleasant process. [redacted] was very professional, responsive, knowledgable and fun to work with.
The BW team that did all the work, starting with the demolition, to the final product were very courteous, respectful, always on time and careful.
We highly recommend Borth-Wilson and wouldn't hesitate to call on them again.

This is probably more my responsibility than theirs, but make sure you get all the information before accepting an estimate. For example, I was quoted around $375-$425 to install a gas line. The work was closer to $600 ($300 material, $300 labor (2hrs)). Seemed like a surprising jump where the work was roughly the same and only the material changed.
The difference from the original estimate is that instead of using 20-25 feet of hard pipe, they had to use 26 feet of trackpipe. Assuming that the original quote (minus $300 labor) of materials cost $125, that would mean that the new material cost twice that. My fault for not being more proactive on gathering pricing information.
One more thing to be aware of, if you decide to turn the work down it will cost you $75 for the travel cost.
Afterwards, I spoke with the plumber and he said that, even he was not sure why they quoted me that price. Even if we went the hard-pipe route, the labor would have taken twice as long. So to save cost he used the tractpipe instead. (Lowered one star from 3 stars after this update).

We had our water heater replaced recently. This experience went very smoothly. The staff who made the appointment was very pleasant and knowledgeable and made sure we had the proper heater. The plumber who installed the unit was timely and neat. We are very happy with their service and would definitely use them again.

Borth-Wilson, Inc. (Plumbers)
I was overcharged on a toilet wax ring replacement job.
Because of the “A+” Revdex.com rating they received I called Borth-Wilson, Inc. (plumbing) to replace the wax ring on toilet. It was not a rush job because it only leaked when flushed and the household used the second bathroom at this time.
Over the telephone, [redacted] quoted me $150/hour rate, but maybe more depending on the scope/difficulty of the job.
When the plumber arrived he went right to work and replaced the wax ring and was finished UNDER an hour. I wouldn’t expect to pay for less than an hour of work, however I wasn’t charged $150 or even $150 plus materials (the wax ring), I was charged $265 plus tax.
I called the company -twice to talk to the management. The receptionist said that she would pass on my message, but they have not returned my call.
In addition, the appointment was for 3pm, however the plumber called at 1:30 and asked if he could come at 2pm. I agreed and left work immediately to accommodate him.
I have still not received an explanation for the overcharge.

Review: On August 28th Borth Wilson Plumbers sent someone to fix a couple problems I had in my house. The individual that was sent did some of the work I needed done but when I asked him to check a leak coming from a flexible hose under my toilet tank he said he did not know how to do that. I paid him for the work performed in the amount of $285.12.I then called Borth Wilson Plumbers to let them know I still needed someone that could fix the leak under my toilet tank. They asked if they should send the same person and I said no, that he had told me he could not fix it. They sent another person on August 30, 2013 and in five minutes he had it fixed. All that needed to be done was tighten the nut. Why could not the person sent on August 28th have done the job. With the second visit I was presented with a new bill of $73.92including tax. Since I have not paid for the second trip the bill has increased to $78.26.Desired Settlement: My complaint is that the work could have been done on the first visit. Why would not the plumber on the first visit have taken five minutes to correct the problem? I feel because of my age I was taken advantage of. I am objecting to paying the bill of $78.26 for the second visit.(prepared by [redacted] that works with the elderly. My phone number is ###-###-####)

Business
Response:
Dear Mr. [redacted],
On the initial trip to your home, we were unable to repair the toilet because the technician believed the leak was from the gasket.  We do not stock the gasket for this particular style of toilet.  At your request, we sent a second technician.  He determined that the gasket did not have to be replaced after closer examination of the gasket itself.  He was able to re-assemble and tighten the tank bolts to eliminate the leak.  As we had explained to you over the phone, there was no charge for the first technician's time and we do not charge a service call for the second trip.  Therefor, the total bill would have been the same whether the repair was done in one trip or two.  We would be willing to eliminate the finance charges ($4.34 - invoice date 9/3/13) if the bill is paid promptly.

Thank you,
[redacted]



Business
Response:
Invoice #[redacted] in the amount of $285.12 was for completely separate repairs (a basin faucet and lawn faucet).  We did not charge anything for the toilet on this invoice.  The unpaid invoice #[redacted] in the amount of $73.92 is for the repairs on the toilet.  If we had done all three repairs in one trip, the total invoice would have been $359.04 just as is the total of both invoices.  Please feel free to call if you need further explanation.

Thanks again,
[redacted]



Consumer
Response:
Your response to me is very confusing. First you state that that the second technician determined that the gasket did not have to be replaced after closer examination of the gasket itself. He was able to re-assemble and tighten the tank bolts to eliminate the leak. As we had explained to you over the phone, there was no charge for the first technician's time and we do not charge a service call for the second trip".
Then I ask what was the $285,16 charge ([redacted]) for if you did not charge for the second trip?
Now this is where it gets confusing. You replied that the Invoice [redacted] in the amount of $285.12 was for completely separate repairs. (Yes I agree), it was for the basin faucet and lawn faucet. Then you say you did not charge anything for the toilet on this invoice. Which confirms your other statement that I was not charged for the second trip. Then you say invoice [redacted] in the amount of $73.92 is for the repairs on the toilet. Yet in the previous note you said you waived that charge since the only thing  the first serviceman had to do was tighten the tank nut. Which is correct?
I had a service man over twice. I paid for the first trip. Then from what you are saying is that I still owe for the serviceman that came over on the second trip. Which is it?
 
To understand your train of thought, please provide the following:
Invoice number for each trip and the date of the trip.  Also what was done on each trip. It sounds like there was three trips, but there were only two.
 
Thank you again for your time in this matter.
 
[redacted]