Bruce MacKay Pump & Well Service, Inc.

I was experiencing a water shortage for a well located on a property which is a rental. I requested an appointment which would allow my maintenance manager to be present. The technicians turned up a different day and wandered around the property, never did any entry of the well to confirm water pressure, and I was charged $400. and advised there was no additional problem with the well. When I questioned this bill in light of no actual test performed, I was told that based on work done several years before I should have known that the well needed to be deepened. I felt that the technicians did not do their job in confirming current water pressure, that the Company was not responsive in addressing the well issues, and that the charge for the amount of time on the property and the lack of any actual tests unreasonable.Product_Or_Service: [redacted]Desired SettlementI have already written the Company to complain. I feel I should be reimbursed for a part of the payment, and otherwise am notifying Revdex.com of a poor service.Initial Business *esponse Contact Name and Title: [redacted]Contact Phone: [redacted]Contact Email: [redacted]e: Case # [redacted], Property Address - [redacted], [redacted]To Whom It May Concern: On 6/9/2009 we performed a service call at [redacted], [redacted]. We replaced the pump in the well and tested the well to find it producing 6 GPM. At that time we installed a restrictor so the well would not be over pumped. After performing some research we were able to determine that the well had filled in. We returned on 7/14/2009 to remove that fill. We were able to remove 13' of fill however we did not increase the water flow of the well. At this time we informed [redacted] that the well was only producing 6 GPM and if more water was required that the well would need to be deepened. Please see the attached paperwork regarding this work. We were called back for a service call on 5/13/13 to see why the system was having low pressure issues. We met with the tenant on site regarding their water usage and they informed us that they were new to the home and showed us the amount of water they were using. From previous work on the property we knew that there was a 6 GPM flow restrictor in the well to keep the pump from over pumping the well. Based on what the tenant informed us on the water usage we were able to determine that the 6 GPM flow would not be able to keep up with the demand and when the system uses more than 6 GPM the system experiences low pressure. We advised the tenant of the situation and advised them to use less irrigation and space the zones out to allow the well to recover. The reason for these recommendations is that we had previously informed the homeowner that the well needed a deepening due to low yield. The homeowner had decided that they did not want to go with this option in 2009. Taking this into account we offered solutions other than deepening to keep the cost at a minimum for the customer. The total of the bill was $290, not the stated $400.Our next communication with [redacted] was a letter that was dated 9/17/13 stating that she had used another company to deepen the well and that she was not happy with our work. Prior to this letter we were unaware that the customer was unsatisfied with any of the work that we had performed and were not provided the opportunity to even discuss any of the issues before the customer hired another company to do work that we had suggested to be done 4 years ago. We responded to this with a letter dated October 11th, 2013. Please see attached for a copy of both of these letters. The customer paid the invoice total of $290 on 6/11/2013.There was a miss communication that put us at the property without the property manager and only the tenant at the site. We do apologize for the miss communication that led to this situation. We also regret that there was not further communication regarding the situation to give us an opportunity to satisfy the customer until the complaint and the information that they had hired another company to perform the work we had suggested. We did make the assumption that since the deepening had not been done the customer wanted suggestions on how to live with the situation. We apologize for this assumption as well. At this point we feel that the work that we performed was correct and the refund is not justified. We apologize for any miss communication that caused the customer to go with another company. All Supporting documentation available upon request. Sincerely,*. [redacted]Final Consumer *esponse (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)The response from [redacted] is correct in that they visited the property June 2013, talked to the tenant, and billed me $290 (my first number was indeed in error). For this sum, no tests were performed, the well was not entered, and there was no test to assure that the well was actually pumping at the 6gpm rate. There is a large holding tank, and this 6gpm rate works sufficiently if the well is performing at this rate (it did so for 3 years, 1 of which was with current tenant). In fact, within a few weeks of the 2013 visit, the well dried up entirely and indications are that it had not been pumping any where near 6gpm. My dissatisfaction lies with a high cost of a visit to test the well during which there was no test of the well nor of the water flow, merely a conversation with the tenant. That to me seems to be misrepresentation of the service call. Because the well then dried up entirely, the repair became an emergency, and the residence was completely out of water.Final Business *esponse *e: Case # [redacted]Dear [redacted],I understand that you were unhappy with the service that we performed for you this past summer. In reviewing the work that we performed at the property of [redacted] I do not believe that our diagnosis was incorrect. We informed you that the system was using too much water and if more water was needed than the well would need to be deepened. You are correct that we did not have the exact GPM that the well was producing at the time however the diagnosis of the problem and the suggested solution is exactly what you had the other company perform. I regret that we were unable to speak in a timely manner that may have allowed us to get back to the site and get a GPM for you at no charge. Unfortunately we were not informed of the dissatisfaction until after the matter. In response to the cost of the bill at $290 for two hours of labor we are willing to reduce the charge in half to bring the total down to $145, essentially only charging for one hour of work. We are also willing to drop the hourly charge from a two man rate down to the one man rate of $105/ hour. This would bring the total of the bill down to $105. Thank you,*. [redacted]