I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I reject his mechanical background as enough to say that I had an already broken door knob, when I had the locksmith from [redacted] come out I asked him if it was possible that it was already broke and but still working and he promptly told me no, this was not possible(He then Quoted me a price of $for a new lock and rekey at which time I told him I couldn't pay that as I still had to pay for a sink installation and it was damage that I was not responsible for) As to how my faucets were mounted I called south side plumbing and explained to a man named bill how my water lines ran and how the faucets came from behind the backsplash so as to have everything needed and be able to complete the project that dayAs my major concern was not with his $service charge but after walking in the house with no notepad no tools charging me for a 10min visit of which only were in my house and then breaking something and leaving me responsible for repairsIt cost me more to repair the damage done during the visit, more of my time, and an inconvenience I didn't needI understand that he has no interest in making this right, even if he did come to inspect the door knob it would've been the same result, him telling me it's my sfaultIve completed all of the repairs on my own as I already knew there was no intentions of them doing it in a timely mannerI'm over this whole situation, I don't care if I get reimbursed anymore but their business relies on people and I've told everyone I know about it Regards [redacted] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below The basis for the subject complaint revolves around poor communication and misinformation defined as ‘clerical errors’ by the business Completed work defined in the response dated September 8, was not accurately noted in any previous invoice or wri of completed work, therefore questioning the authenticity of the response The business claims that work defined as completed in two separate apartment units in the response was mistakenly identified as a single unit in the attached invoice This ‘clerical error’ would seem reasonable if not for the obvious nature of the issue easily identified in the third unit, by the owner and tenants, none of whom are licensed or experienced plumbers The classification of a ‘leak’ versus ‘dripping’, as noted by the business, is immaterial The dripping faucet resulted in water visibly running back towards the tub surround from the faucet and LEAK-ing behind the tub and tub surround This was identified upon my arrival to the 3rd unit after the business identified the work as complete per the Emergency after hour’s service Some water certainly exited through the drainage system while the remainder penetrated the tub surround and relocated to the first floor unit of the apartment Neither ‘dripping’ nor ‘leaking’ shower faucet was noted in the invoice, regardless of unit number referenced The referenced service call and message identify questions about the completion of the job The call was a result of the 3rd unit tenant informing me that the tub faucet was still leaking This prompted the call to the business inquiring if work was actually completed as initially defined and scheduled An issue was not raised to the “On call Technician” as I had no reason to believe work was actually completed as initially reported considering the persisting faucet leak reported by my tenant Furthermore, the technician informed me that ANY trip to my property after hours would result in a fee The technician made this statement after reporting the work as complete I have no control over what limitations or fees are reported to me in a phone call, regardless of the business’s defined emergency rates As the property owner I find it very reasonable that I elected to pursue an alternative path to address my plumbing issue The request for an invoice or company letter head was a convenient excuse considering I had informed the business of my decision to utilize a friend upon dissatisfaction of work reported as complete I also find it convenient that the business acknowledges clerical errors in the invoice to attempt to resolve my complaints defined herein Regards, [redacted]
In response to Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] ***The allegations of this complaint are completely falseCurrently Ms [redacted] ’s account is delinquentLegal action will be pursued if balance is not paid in full within days.South Side Plumbing & Heating Cowas contracted to install a new boiler by Peoples Gas Covia Conservation Consultants Inc10-19-17, contract# ***(See enclosed)Once contract was completed South Side Plumbing & Heating received payment in full from Conservation Consultants IncThe boiler installed is a Dunkirk M#DXL-125, S# [redacted] As you will be able to verify by the enclosed copies of Dunkirk warranty specifications the DXL model comes exclusively with a year part warranty and year heat exchanger warrantyNeither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides any sort of labor warranty.2-16-18Ms [redacted] called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty control boardThe Dunkirk supplier was closed for the weekend and would reopen Monday allowing South Side Plumbing & Heating to submit a warranty claim and receive warranted partsMs [redacted] was charged $and South Side Plumbing received payment at this time.2-19-18Upon the Dunkirk supplier opening for business Monday morning South Side Plumbing & Heating completed the part warranty process and received warranted parts from DunkirkSouth Side Plumbing & Heating returned to Ms [redacted] ’s residence and replaced the failed partsHeat was restored to the residence at this timeIn good faith South Side Plumbing & Heating did not charge Ms [redacted] anything during this visit.3-10-18Ms [redacted] called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty thermostatAt this time Ms [redacted] was advised the thermostat was faulty and a cost to replace the thermostat in which she declinedThe technician completed paperwork and requested payment for serviceAt this time Ms [redacted] refused to render payment of $My technician was advised she was not paying because this service should be under warranty and when the previous technician was on site 2-19-he should have replaced the thermostat thenMs [redacted] was advised the thermostat was existing to her old system and was not replaced during boiler installationThe installation contract # [redacted] did not include thermostat replacementDuring the previous technicians visit on 2-19-the thermostat was not faultyIf the thermostat was faulty the boiler would not have operated for nearly a monthSouth Side Plumbing & Heating does not replace unneeded partsMs [redacted] was advised neither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides labor warranties.In closing South Side Plumbing & Heating is requesting the charges from service date 3-10-of $be paid in full within days or Ms [redacted] will be facing legal actions.SincerelyNJ [redacted] V.P
In response to Revdex.com complaint ID *** *** ***
*** *** ***
*** ** ***The allegations of this complaint are completely falseCurrently Ms***’s account is delinquentLegal action will be pursued if balance is not paid in full within days.South Side Plumbing
& Heating Cowas contracted to install a new boiler by Peoples Gas Covia Conservation Consultants Inc10-19-17, contract# ***(See enclosed)Once contract was completed South Side Plumbing & Heating received payment in full from Conservation Consultants IncThe boiler installed is a Dunkirk M#DXL-125, S*As you will be able to verify by the enclosed copies of Dunkirk warranty specifications the DXL model comes exclusively with a year part warranty and year heat exchanger warrantyNeither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides any sort of labor warranty.2-16-18Ms*** called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs*** was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty control boardThe Dunkirk supplier was closed for the weekend and would reopen Monday allowing South Side Plumbing & Heating to submit a warranty claim and receive warranted partsMs*** was charged $and South Side Plumbing received payment at this time.2-19-18Upon the Dunkirk supplier opening for business Monday morning South Side Plumbing & Heating completed the part warranty process and received warranted parts from DunkirkSouth Side Plumbing & Heating returned to Ms***’s residence and replaced the failed partsHeat was restored to the residence at this timeIn good faith South Side Plumbing & Heating did not charge Ms*** anything during this visit.3-10-18Ms*** called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs*** was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty thermostatAt this time Ms*** was advised the thermostat was faulty and a cost to replace the thermostat in which she declinedThe technician completed paperwork and requested payment for serviceAt this time Ms*** refused to render payment of $My technician was advised she was not paying because this service should be under warranty and when the previous technician was on site 2-19-he should have replaced the thermostat thenMs*** was advised the thermostat was existing to her old system and was not replaced during boiler installationThe installation contract #*** did not include thermostat replacementDuring the previous technicians visit on 2-19-the thermostat was not faultyIf the thermostat was faulty the boiler would not have operated for nearly a monthSouth Side Plumbing & Heating does not replace unneeded partsMs*** was advised neither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides labor warranties.In closing South Side Plumbing & Heating is requesting the charges from service date 3-10-of $be paid in full within days or Ms*** will be facing legal actions.SincerelyNJ*** ***V.P
September 8, Revdex.com Holiday Drive Pittsburgh, PaRe: Complaint # *** To whom it may Concern, Please accept this correspondence as South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc's., response to the complaint filed by *** *** On, or about May 17, South Side
Plumbing and Heating Inc., received a phone call from Mr*** requesting plumbing service at Amabell Street based on 1st floor tenant allegations of water leaking through the ceiling of their apartment presumably from apartment # 3, an appointment was scheduled for Thursday May 19, Arrived as scheduled to initially observe 1st floor ceiling for damage, relocated to the 2nd floor bathroom for continued diagnostics where upon the technician observed water accumulating around the base of toiletThe toilet in question was drained and lifted in order to examine the wax ring seal and associated connecting drain flange for condition observing the wax sealing ring was in fact deteriorated and most likely the immediate cause of the observed leak in the 1st floor ceilingThe toilet was then reset utilizing a new wax sealing ring and securing bolts then activated numerous times to confirm leak free operationWhile in this 2nd floor location a examination of the bathtub was performed, observing the drain and water piping serving same with leak free conditionsOur technician again relocated to the 3rd floor bathroom for an examination of plumbing fixtures activating the toilet several times observing leak free operationThe lavatory was also activated confirming leak free operationWith access through the kitchen base cabinet lazy susan the bathtub faucet body, hot and cold water piping, and associated drain piping were examined observing a newer waste and overflow assembly installed with all piping examined in leak free conditionsWith the piping examined the technician then began to spray and splash water onto the bathing compartments surround walls to determine if leaks were present at any of the caulking joints, seams, tile grout lines, or otherwise, leaks were immediately observed at a section of deteriorated caulking along the bathtub wet wall leaking onto the tiled floor as indicated on our invoiceThe failed caulking was removed with new caulking applied, thus completing our scheduled work as directed by the ownerAccording to Mr*** the immediate issue was overlooked during the initial service visit, which being a leaking shower faucet within the 3rd floor bathroom as he was informed by his tenant Mr*** also claims he arrived later that evening and was able to slow the alleged leak on his own with a pair of channel lock pliers, a leak of this nature could not have been overlooked as Mr*** claimsFurthermore this would not be identified as a leak per say, and would be considered as a dripping, or running faucet that would be in need of its internals repaired or replacedAs Mr*** clearly states, and as previously noted Mr*** was able to slow the leak on his own with a pair of channel lock pliers thus containing said alleged leak within the bathing compartment with the water from said leak exiting the compartment through the drainage system previously examined and determined leak freeMr*** did contact our Emergency after hour's service line as he states at approximately 5:pm on May 19, which was hour and minutes after the service call was completed, and as our records supportHowever, our record of the call placed to our Emergency Answering Service indicates Mr*** was calling to determine if the work had been completed and did not indicate there that there were currently active leaks present (see attached answering service report)As for his claims of being informed it would cost either $to $in order to respond to his request for after hours service is unsupported as our "Emergency Rates" don't fall into MrBarrett's recollectionFurthermore, had Mr*** correctly identified the severe nature of the call as an active leak from work recently performed, the "On Call Technician" would have contacted the Manager on Duty detailing the conversation and arrived to Mr***'s rental property at no additional cost as the previous work would have been considered "under warranty" provided the leak in question was actually present during our previous workWhen Mr***'s account became days delinquent a reminder was mailed to his address, on August 18, Mr*** contacted our office disputing the charges, disputing the diagnosis, and overall disputing SSPHI's integrityMr*** further explained he was forced to contact another Plumbing Contractor to correctly repair the alleged faucet drip; the contractor in question was a friendMr*** was asked to provide an invoice on the Companies letterhead describing what was observed as the immediate problem, and what was done to remedy said problem, including the cost of repairsIn doing so, South Side Plumbing would have a formal record of the repairs allegedly performed by others thus permitting South Side Plumbing to make a professional decision on how the concern should be addressed, if a reduction to the invoice should be made, and if any customer accommodations should be consideredWithout the requested repair documentation Mr***'s claims cannot be taken into consideration as this was conveyed to him in detail, nor was he ever considered, or referred to as "lying" as he mentions in his complaintMr***'s frustration also stems from a noted clerical error on his invoice, which SSPHapologized forAs he mentions Invoice #*** dated June 3, does in fact state under the job heading *** *** Street # 3, and does in fact fail to reference the unit correctly within the actual work description contained within same, instead the unit is referenced as the 2nd floor inlieu of 3rd floor thus our clerical errorHowever, if the afore referenced description of work, and location of work meet the criteria fora 3rd floor, or apartment # location then said description should suffice as evidence the correct unit was accessed which will put to rest any current, or further allegations the unit was not accessedWe feel by identifying "the lazy susan" kitchen cabinet access to the bathtub in question should be considered as a critical reference point to verify the unit was correctly identified, examined, and addressed professionally, as well as correctlyin closing, South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., prides ourselves in quality customer service and attempts to accommodate our customer base in any means possible when unfortunate situations arise as we attempted to do in this instance with Mr***As previously stated Mr*** could not provide the requested documentation to support his allegations thus no additional consideration could be given to this matterRegardless of Mr***'s claims, South Side Plumbing did provide a service as requested making repairs to an actively observed leak under the toilet within the 2nd floor apartment which was the direct cause of the leak within the 1st floor apartment, for this we expect payment for services renderedIf additional problems were observed by Mr*** after our visit, and said problems were not contributing factors to the original problem Mr*** would have been financially liable for any additional repairs requiredSouth Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., feels our representation of events in this matter shall suffice your needs as a rebuttal to Mr***'s allegations, tf we can be of additional support or assistance please do not hesitate to contact our officeRespectfully Submitted, South Side Plumbing and Heating, Inc
In response to the consumers message for complaint ID ***The mechanics of a standard door handle are rather simple as have repaired and replaced more than I can count in my timeAs it is called a door handle for a reason it is meant to be pulled, pushed and turnedIf I was able to conduct my inspection would have been a able to determine if there was any type of tampering by my technician, if it was a newer handle or if the damaged occurred by age old wear and tear useSouth Side Plumbing & Heating cannot be responsible of damages for lack of maintenance or operation malfunctionsI don't believe the consumer knew that the door handle was malfunctioning but I do believe this was a result of a worn product that needed maintenance or replacementAs a result of the customers attitude and verbal comments we were not able to conduct a inspection therefore the matter was closedWe understand as plumbing contractors consumers are not completely sure of what they need when booking a service callWe always attempt to get as much information as we can to attempt to be prepared to what is needed to complete the jobUpon arrival the technician observed a incorrect consumer provided sink baseAt this time the technician took photos and notes via email transmissions to the officeObviously with the wrong consumer supplied sink base there was no need to unload tools into the basementThe full intentions of South Side Plumbing & Heating was to save the consumer time and money on the sink installationIf proper protocol was followed by the consumer on the door handle complaint we could have made a inspection and addressed the consumers concernsSome consumers are rather difficult to please and these consumers are not clients South Side Plumbing & Heating wish to serviceSincerely, NJake K*** V.PSouth Side Plumbing & Heating
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I reject his mechanical background as enough to say that I had an already broken door knob, when I had the locksmith from *** *** *** come out I asked him if it was possible that it was already broke and but still working and he promptly told me no, this was not possible(He then Quoted me a price of $for a new lock and rekey at which time I told him I couldn't pay that as I still had to pay for a sink installation and it was damage that I was not responsible for) As to how my faucets were mounted I called south side plumbing and explained to a man named bill how my water lines ran and how the faucets came from behind the backsplash so as to have everything needed and be able to complete the project that dayAs my major concern was not with his $service charge but after walking in the house with no notepad no tools charging me for a 10min visit of which only were in my house and then breaking something and leaving me responsible for repairsIt cost me more to repair the damage done during the visit, more of my time, and an inconvenience I didn't needI understand that he has no interest in making this right, even if he did come to inspect the door knob it would've been the same result, him telling me it's my sfaultIve completed all of the repairs on my own as I already knew there was no intentions of them doing it in a timely mannerI'm over this whole situation, I don't care if I get reimbursed anymore but their business relies on people and I've told everyone I know about it.
Regards
*** ***
Revdex.com*** ** *** in response to complaint number #***.Upon the technician arriving onsite and accessing the work to be completed, the technician phoned into the office, I NJake K*** the manager on duty took the cal! from the onsite technician and this is a statement on
the events that occurred.The technician forwarded me photos of the existing cement utility sink with a standard top mount utility faucet and the new commercial stainless steel kitchen sink the customer had purchased and provided(I attached these pictures for your reference)Upon observing the pictures I had noticed the customer supplied sink was not the correct sink for the applicationThis sink required a rear deck mount faucet and the existing waterlines re-roughedI explained to the technician that he ***ds to talk to the customer and explain we can install the sink he had provided but we will ***d to get a special faucet and re-rough the existing waterlines which may be expensiveOr as another option the customer can purchase a standard fiberglass utility sink and we can install a standard top mount faucet to retain the existing rough of the waterlines to save costAt this time I also advised the technician to charge the customer a $trip feeSouth Side Plumbing & Heating labor rates for this type of service are $80.00/hr service charge one hour minimum, plus materials and a onetime $trip feeThe customer could have incurred a $charge for this visitDue to work history with this particular customer and in good faith I waived the $service charge.Approximately minutes after the previous conversation with the technician he phoned back in again to be dispatched to his next jobHe also disclosed at this time upon closing the door to leave the customers house the door knob fell off in his hand.Immediately after hanging the phone up from the technician, the business line rang, I answered the phone as to a partially annoyed Mr***He began to explain that South Side Plumbing & Heating came unprepared for his job and he was charged $for nothingI quickly explained to Mr*** that I was the manager that spoke to the onsite technician, I restated our recommendations to Mr*** and explained they were based solely to save him expenseMr*** understood and agreed with the assessmentMr*** continued with the conversation explaining that upon our technician leaving he broke his door handleI then asked Mr*** how the technician broke the door handleMr*** irately explained he closed the door and broke the handleComing from a mechanical background I understand the mechanics of a door handleI attempted to ask if the door handle was broken before and how old the door handle wasImmediately upon me asking if the door handle was broken prior I was interrupted by an outraged, cursing Mr***At this point with Mr*** screaming I hung up the phoneApproximately minute later Mr*** called back and upon him identifying himself I explained that I will not be subjected to vulgar language and screaming, if he would like to have a conversation I will gladly continueAt this point Mr*** apologizedAfter accepting his apology I continued by explaining I will look into this matter with the technician and attempt to verify if there was foul play or tampering outside of operations of a door handle by the technicianBefore I could finish my statement I was interrupted by Mr*** rudely telling me to forget about everything and he hung up on me.Settlement Response:There will be no refund of the justified $trip feeI would have considered of working with Mr***After the conversation and the disrespect, I am not entertaining any thoughts of incurring any fees from the locksmith.NJake K***V.P.South Side Plumbing & Heating
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The basis for the subject complaint revolves around poor
communication and misinformation defined as ‘clerical errors’ by the business. Completed work defined in the response dated
September 8, was not accurately noted in any previous invoice or wri
of completed work, therefore questioning the authenticity of the response.
The business claims that work defined as completed in two
separate apartment units in the response was mistakenly identified as a single
unit in the attached invoice. This ‘clerical
error’ would seem reasonable if not for the obvious nature of the issue easily
identified in the third unit, by the owner and tenants, none of whom are
licensed or experienced plumbers.
The classification of a ‘leak’ versus ‘dripping’, as noted
by the business, is immaterial. The dripping
faucet resulted in water visibly running back towards the tub surround from the
faucet and LEAK-ing behind the tub and tub surround. This was identified upon my arrival to the 3rd
unit after the business identified the work as complete per the Emergency after
hour’s service. Some water certainly exited
through the drainage system while the remainder penetrated the tub surround and
relocated to the first floor unit of the apartment. Neither ‘dripping’ nor ‘leaking’ shower
faucet was noted in the invoice, regardless of unit number referenced
The referenced service call and message identify questions about
the completion of the job. The call was
a result of the 3rd unit tenant informing me that the tub faucet was
still leaking. This prompted the call to
the business inquiring if work was actually completed as initially defined and
scheduled. An issue was not raised to
the “On call Technician” as I had no reason to believe work was actually completed
as initially reported considering the persisting faucet leak reported by my
tenant. Furthermore, the technician informed
me that ANY trip to my property after hours would result in a fee. The technician made this statement after reporting
the work as complete. I have no control
over what limitations or fees are reported to me in a phone call, regardless of
the business’s defined emergency rates.
As the property owner I find it very reasonable that I
elected to pursue an alternative path to address my plumbing issue. The request for an invoice or company letter
head was a convenient excuse considering I had informed the business of my decision
to utilize a friend upon dissatisfaction of work reported as complete. I also find it convenient that the business
acknowledges clerical errors in the invoice to attempt to resolve my complaints
defined herein.
Regards,
*** ***
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below I reject his mechanical background as enough to say that I had an already broken door knob, when I had the locksmith from [redacted] come out I asked him if it was possible that it was already broke and but still working and he promptly told me no, this was not possible(He then Quoted me a price of $for a new lock and rekey at which time I told him I couldn't pay that as I still had to pay for a sink installation and it was damage that I was not responsible for) As to how my faucets were mounted I called south side plumbing and explained to a man named bill how my water lines ran and how the faucets came from behind the backsplash so as to have everything needed and be able to complete the project that dayAs my major concern was not with his $service charge but after walking in the house with no notepad no tools charging me for a 10min visit of which only were in my house and then breaking something and leaving me responsible for repairsIt cost me more to repair the damage done during the visit, more of my time, and an inconvenience I didn't needI understand that he has no interest in making this right, even if he did come to inspect the door knob it would've been the same result, him telling me it's my sfaultIve completed all of the repairs on my own as I already knew there was no intentions of them doing it in a timely mannerI'm over this whole situation, I don't care if I get reimbursed anymore but their business relies on people and I've told everyone I know about it Regards [redacted] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below The basis for the subject complaint revolves around poor communication and misinformation defined as ‘clerical errors’ by the business Completed work defined in the response dated September 8, was not accurately noted in any previous invoice or wri of completed work, therefore questioning the authenticity of the response The business claims that work defined as completed in two separate apartment units in the response was mistakenly identified as a single unit in the attached invoice This ‘clerical error’ would seem reasonable if not for the obvious nature of the issue easily identified in the third unit, by the owner and tenants, none of whom are licensed or experienced plumbers The classification of a ‘leak’ versus ‘dripping’, as noted by the business, is immaterial The dripping faucet resulted in water visibly running back towards the tub surround from the faucet and LEAK-ing behind the tub and tub surround This was identified upon my arrival to the 3rd unit after the business identified the work as complete per the Emergency after hour’s service Some water certainly exited through the drainage system while the remainder penetrated the tub surround and relocated to the first floor unit of the apartment Neither ‘dripping’ nor ‘leaking’ shower faucet was noted in the invoice, regardless of unit number referenced The referenced service call and message identify questions about the completion of the job The call was a result of the 3rd unit tenant informing me that the tub faucet was still leaking This prompted the call to the business inquiring if work was actually completed as initially defined and scheduled An issue was not raised to the “On call Technician” as I had no reason to believe work was actually completed as initially reported considering the persisting faucet leak reported by my tenant Furthermore, the technician informed me that ANY trip to my property after hours would result in a fee The technician made this statement after reporting the work as complete I have no control over what limitations or fees are reported to me in a phone call, regardless of the business’s defined emergency rates As the property owner I find it very reasonable that I elected to pursue an alternative path to address my plumbing issue The request for an invoice or company letter head was a convenient excuse considering I had informed the business of my decision to utilize a friend upon dissatisfaction of work reported as complete I also find it convenient that the business acknowledges clerical errors in the invoice to attempt to resolve my complaints defined herein Regards, [redacted]
In response to Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] ***The allegations of this complaint are completely falseCurrently Ms [redacted] ’s account is delinquentLegal action will be pursued if balance is not paid in full within days.South Side Plumbing & Heating Cowas contracted to install a new boiler by Peoples Gas Covia Conservation Consultants Inc10-19-17, contract# ***(See enclosed)Once contract was completed South Side Plumbing & Heating received payment in full from Conservation Consultants IncThe boiler installed is a Dunkirk M#DXL-125, S# [redacted] As you will be able to verify by the enclosed copies of Dunkirk warranty specifications the DXL model comes exclusively with a year part warranty and year heat exchanger warrantyNeither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides any sort of labor warranty.2-16-18Ms [redacted] called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty control boardThe Dunkirk supplier was closed for the weekend and would reopen Monday allowing South Side Plumbing & Heating to submit a warranty claim and receive warranted partsMs [redacted] was charged $and South Side Plumbing received payment at this time.2-19-18Upon the Dunkirk supplier opening for business Monday morning South Side Plumbing & Heating completed the part warranty process and received warranted parts from DunkirkSouth Side Plumbing & Heating returned to Ms [redacted] ’s residence and replaced the failed partsHeat was restored to the residence at this timeIn good faith South Side Plumbing & Heating did not charge Ms [redacted] anything during this visit.3-10-18Ms [redacted] called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty thermostatAt this time Ms [redacted] was advised the thermostat was faulty and a cost to replace the thermostat in which she declinedThe technician completed paperwork and requested payment for serviceAt this time Ms [redacted] refused to render payment of $My technician was advised she was not paying because this service should be under warranty and when the previous technician was on site 2-19-he should have replaced the thermostat thenMs [redacted] was advised the thermostat was existing to her old system and was not replaced during boiler installationThe installation contract # [redacted] did not include thermostat replacementDuring the previous technicians visit on 2-19-the thermostat was not faultyIf the thermostat was faulty the boiler would not have operated for nearly a monthSouth Side Plumbing & Heating does not replace unneeded partsMs [redacted] was advised neither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides labor warranties.In closing South Side Plumbing & Heating is requesting the charges from service date 3-10-of $be paid in full within days or Ms [redacted] will be facing legal actions.SincerelyNJ [redacted] V.P
In response to Revdex.com complaint ID *** *** ***
*As you will be able to verify by the enclosed copies of Dunkirk warranty specifications the DXL model comes exclusively with a year part warranty and year heat exchanger warrantyNeither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides any sort of labor warranty.2-16-18Ms*** called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs*** was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty control boardThe Dunkirk supplier was closed for the weekend and would reopen Monday allowing South Side Plumbing & Heating to submit a warranty claim and receive warranted partsMs*** was charged $and South Side Plumbing received payment at this time.2-19-18Upon the Dunkirk supplier opening for business Monday morning South Side Plumbing & Heating completed the part warranty process and received warranted parts from DunkirkSouth Side Plumbing & Heating returned to Ms***’s residence and replaced the failed partsHeat was restored to the residence at this timeIn good faith South Side Plumbing & Heating did not charge Ms*** anything during this visit.3-10-18Ms*** called South Side Plumbing & Heating after hours requesting service to her boiler for a reason of no heatMs*** was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card numberThe technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty thermostatAt this time Ms*** was advised the thermostat was faulty and a cost to replace the thermostat in which she declinedThe technician completed paperwork and requested payment for serviceAt this time Ms*** refused to render payment of $My technician was advised she was not paying because this service should be under warranty and when the previous technician was on site 2-19-he should have replaced the thermostat thenMs*** was advised the thermostat was existing to her old system and was not replaced during boiler installationThe installation contract #*** did not include thermostat replacementDuring the previous technicians visit on 2-19-the thermostat was not faultyIf the thermostat was faulty the boiler would not have operated for nearly a monthSouth Side Plumbing & Heating does not replace unneeded partsMs*** was advised neither Dunkirk nor South Side Plumbing & Heating provides labor warranties.In closing South Side Plumbing & Heating is requesting the charges from service date 3-10-of $be paid in full within days or Ms*** will be facing legal actions.SincerelyNJ*** ***V.P
*** *** ***
*** ** ***The allegations of this complaint are completely falseCurrently Ms***’s account is delinquentLegal action will be pursued if balance is not paid in full within days.South Side Plumbing
& Heating Cowas contracted to install a new boiler by Peoples Gas Covia Conservation Consultants Inc10-19-17, contract# ***(See enclosed)Once contract was completed South Side Plumbing & Heating received payment in full from Conservation Consultants IncThe boiler installed is a Dunkirk M#DXL-125, S
September 8, Revdex.com Holiday Drive Pittsburgh, PaRe: Complaint # *** To whom it may Concern, Please accept this correspondence as South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc's., response to the complaint filed by *** *** On, or about May 17, South Side
Plumbing and Heating Inc., received a phone call from Mr*** requesting plumbing service at Amabell Street based on 1st floor tenant allegations of water leaking through the ceiling of their apartment presumably from apartment # 3, an appointment was scheduled for Thursday May 19, Arrived as scheduled to initially observe 1st floor ceiling for damage, relocated to the 2nd floor bathroom for continued diagnostics where upon the technician observed water accumulating around the base of toiletThe toilet in question was drained and lifted in order to examine the wax ring seal and associated connecting drain flange for condition observing the wax sealing ring was in fact deteriorated and most likely the immediate cause of the observed leak in the 1st floor ceilingThe toilet was then reset utilizing a new wax sealing ring and securing bolts then activated numerous times to confirm leak free operationWhile in this 2nd floor location a examination of the bathtub was performed, observing the drain and water piping serving same with leak free conditionsOur technician again relocated to the 3rd floor bathroom for an examination of plumbing fixtures activating the toilet several times observing leak free operationThe lavatory was also activated confirming leak free operationWith access through the kitchen base cabinet lazy susan the bathtub faucet body, hot and cold water piping, and associated drain piping were examined observing a newer waste and overflow assembly installed with all piping examined in leak free conditionsWith the piping examined the technician then began to spray and splash water onto the bathing compartments surround walls to determine if leaks were present at any of the caulking joints, seams, tile grout lines, or otherwise, leaks were immediately observed at a section of deteriorated caulking along the bathtub wet wall leaking onto the tiled floor as indicated on our invoiceThe failed caulking was removed with new caulking applied, thus completing our scheduled work as directed by the ownerAccording to Mr*** the immediate issue was overlooked during the initial service visit, which being a leaking shower faucet within the 3rd floor bathroom as he was informed by his tenant Mr*** also claims he arrived later that evening and was able to slow the alleged leak on his own with a pair of channel lock pliers, a leak of this nature could not have been overlooked as Mr*** claimsFurthermore this would not be identified as a leak per say, and would be considered as a dripping, or running faucet that would be in need of its internals repaired or replacedAs Mr*** clearly states, and as previously noted Mr*** was able to slow the leak on his own with a pair of channel lock pliers thus containing said alleged leak within the bathing compartment with the water from said leak exiting the compartment through the drainage system previously examined and determined leak freeMr*** did contact our Emergency after hour's service line as he states at approximately 5:pm on May 19, which was hour and minutes after the service call was completed, and as our records supportHowever, our record of the call placed to our Emergency Answering Service indicates Mr*** was calling to determine if the work had been completed and did not indicate there that there were currently active leaks present (see attached answering service report)As for his claims of being informed it would cost either $to $in order to respond to his request for after hours service is unsupported as our "Emergency Rates" don't fall into MrBarrett's recollectionFurthermore, had Mr*** correctly identified the severe nature of the call as an active leak from work recently performed, the "On Call Technician" would have contacted the Manager on Duty detailing the conversation and arrived to Mr***'s rental property at no additional cost as the previous work would have been considered "under warranty" provided the leak in question was actually present during our previous workWhen Mr***'s account became days delinquent a reminder was mailed to his address, on August 18, Mr*** contacted our office disputing the charges, disputing the diagnosis, and overall disputing SSPHI's integrityMr*** further explained he was forced to contact another Plumbing Contractor to correctly repair the alleged faucet drip; the contractor in question was a friendMr*** was asked to provide an invoice on the Companies letterhead describing what was observed as the immediate problem, and what was done to remedy said problem, including the cost of repairsIn doing so, South Side Plumbing would have a formal record of the repairs allegedly performed by others thus permitting South Side Plumbing to make a professional decision on how the concern should be addressed, if a reduction to the invoice should be made, and if any customer accommodations should be consideredWithout the requested repair documentation Mr***'s claims cannot be taken into consideration as this was conveyed to him in detail, nor was he ever considered, or referred to as "lying" as he mentions in his complaintMr***'s frustration also stems from a noted clerical error on his invoice, which SSPHapologized forAs he mentions Invoice #*** dated June 3, does in fact state under the job heading *** *** Street # 3, and does in fact fail to reference the unit correctly within the actual work description contained within same, instead the unit is referenced as the 2nd floor inlieu of 3rd floor thus our clerical errorHowever, if the afore referenced description of work, and location of work meet the criteria fora 3rd floor, or apartment # location then said description should suffice as evidence the correct unit was accessed which will put to rest any current, or further allegations the unit was not accessedWe feel by identifying "the lazy susan" kitchen cabinet access to the bathtub in question should be considered as a critical reference point to verify the unit was correctly identified, examined, and addressed professionally, as well as correctlyin closing, South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., prides ourselves in quality customer service and attempts to accommodate our customer base in any means possible when unfortunate situations arise as we attempted to do in this instance with Mr***As previously stated Mr*** could not provide the requested documentation to support his allegations thus no additional consideration could be given to this matterRegardless of Mr***'s claims, South Side Plumbing did provide a service as requested making repairs to an actively observed leak under the toilet within the 2nd floor apartment which was the direct cause of the leak within the 1st floor apartment, for this we expect payment for services renderedIf additional problems were observed by Mr*** after our visit, and said problems were not contributing factors to the original problem Mr*** would have been financially liable for any additional repairs requiredSouth Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., feels our representation of events in this matter shall suffice your needs as a rebuttal to Mr***'s allegations, tf we can be of additional support or assistance please do not hesitate to contact our officeRespectfully Submitted, South Side Plumbing and Heating, Inc
In response to the consumers message for complaint ID ***The mechanics of a standard door handle are rather simple as have repaired and replaced more than I can count in my timeAs it is called a door handle for a reason it is meant to be pulled, pushed and turnedIf I was able to conduct my inspection would have been a able to determine if there was any type of tampering by my technician, if it was a newer handle or if the damaged occurred by age old wear and tear useSouth Side Plumbing & Heating cannot be responsible of damages for lack of maintenance or operation malfunctionsI don't believe the consumer knew that the door handle was malfunctioning but I do believe this was a result of a worn product that needed maintenance or replacementAs a result of the customers attitude and verbal comments we were not able to conduct a inspection therefore the matter was closedWe understand as plumbing contractors consumers are not completely sure of what they need when booking a service callWe always attempt to get as much information as we can to attempt to be prepared to what is needed to complete the jobUpon arrival the technician observed a incorrect consumer provided sink baseAt this time the technician took photos and notes via email transmissions to the officeObviously with the wrong consumer supplied sink base there was no need to unload tools into the basementThe full intentions of South Side Plumbing & Heating was to save the consumer time and money on the sink installationIf proper protocol was followed by the consumer on the door handle complaint we could have made a inspection and addressed the consumers concernsSome consumers are rather difficult to please and these consumers are not clients South Side Plumbing & Heating wish to serviceSincerely, NJake K*** V.PSouth Side Plumbing & Heating
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I reject his mechanical background as enough to say that I had an already broken door knob, when I had the locksmith from *** *** *** come out I asked him if it was possible that it was already broke and but still working and he promptly told me no, this was not possible(He then Quoted me a price of $for a new lock and rekey at which time I told him I couldn't pay that as I still had to pay for a sink installation and it was damage that I was not responsible for) As to how my faucets were mounted I called south side plumbing and explained to a man named bill how my water lines ran and how the faucets came from behind the backsplash so as to have everything needed and be able to complete the project that dayAs my major concern was not with his $service charge but after walking in the house with no notepad no tools charging me for a 10min visit of which only were in my house and then breaking something and leaving me responsible for repairsIt cost me more to repair the damage done during the visit, more of my time, and an inconvenience I didn't needI understand that he has no interest in making this right, even if he did come to inspect the door knob it would've been the same result, him telling me it's my sfaultIve completed all of the repairs on my own as I already knew there was no intentions of them doing it in a timely mannerI'm over this whole situation, I don't care if I get reimbursed anymore but their business relies on people and I've told everyone I know about it.
Regards
*** ***
Revdex.com*** ** *** in response to complaint number #***.Upon the technician arriving onsite and accessing the work to be completed, the technician phoned into the office, I NJake K*** the manager on duty took the cal! from the onsite technician and this is a statement on
the events that occurred.The technician forwarded me photos of the existing cement utility sink with a standard top mount utility faucet and the new commercial stainless steel kitchen sink the customer had purchased and provided(I attached these pictures for your reference)Upon observing the pictures I had noticed the customer supplied sink was not the correct sink for the applicationThis sink required a rear deck mount faucet and the existing waterlines re-roughedI explained to the technician that he ***ds to talk to the customer and explain we can install the sink he had provided but we will ***d to get a special faucet and re-rough the existing waterlines which may be expensiveOr as another option the customer can purchase a standard fiberglass utility sink and we can install a standard top mount faucet to retain the existing rough of the waterlines to save costAt this time I also advised the technician to charge the customer a $trip feeSouth Side Plumbing & Heating labor rates for this type of service are $80.00/hr service charge one hour minimum, plus materials and a onetime $trip feeThe customer could have incurred a $charge for this visitDue to work history with this particular customer and in good faith I waived the $service charge.Approximately minutes after the previous conversation with the technician he phoned back in again to be dispatched to his next jobHe also disclosed at this time upon closing the door to leave the customers house the door knob fell off in his hand.Immediately after hanging the phone up from the technician, the business line rang, I answered the phone as to a partially annoyed Mr***He began to explain that South Side Plumbing & Heating came unprepared for his job and he was charged $for nothingI quickly explained to Mr*** that I was the manager that spoke to the onsite technician, I restated our recommendations to Mr*** and explained they were based solely to save him expenseMr*** understood and agreed with the assessmentMr*** continued with the conversation explaining that upon our technician leaving he broke his door handleI then asked Mr*** how the technician broke the door handleMr*** irately explained he closed the door and broke the handleComing from a mechanical background I understand the mechanics of a door handleI attempted to ask if the door handle was broken before and how old the door handle wasImmediately upon me asking if the door handle was broken prior I was interrupted by an outraged, cursing Mr***At this point with Mr*** screaming I hung up the phoneApproximately minute later Mr*** called back and upon him identifying himself I explained that I will not be subjected to vulgar language and screaming, if he would like to have a conversation I will gladly continueAt this point Mr*** apologizedAfter accepting his apology I continued by explaining I will look into this matter with the technician and attempt to verify if there was foul play or tampering outside of operations of a door handle by the technicianBefore I could finish my statement I was interrupted by Mr*** rudely telling me to forget about everything and he hung up on me.Settlement Response:There will be no refund of the justified $trip feeI would have considered of working with Mr***After the conversation and the disrespect, I am not entertaining any thoughts of incurring any fees from the locksmith.NJake K***V.P.South Side Plumbing & Heating
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The basis for the subject complaint revolves around poor
communication and misinformation defined as ‘clerical errors’ by the business. Completed work defined in the response dated
September 8, was not accurately noted in any previous invoice or wri
of completed work, therefore questioning the authenticity of the response.
The business claims that work defined as completed in two
separate apartment units in the response was mistakenly identified as a single
unit in the attached invoice. This ‘clerical
error’ would seem reasonable if not for the obvious nature of the issue easily
identified in the third unit, by the owner and tenants, none of whom are
licensed or experienced plumbers.
The classification of a ‘leak’ versus ‘dripping’, as noted
by the business, is immaterial. The dripping
faucet resulted in water visibly running back towards the tub surround from the
faucet and LEAK-ing behind the tub and tub surround. This was identified upon my arrival to the 3rd
unit after the business identified the work as complete per the Emergency after
hour’s service. Some water certainly exited
through the drainage system while the remainder penetrated the tub surround and
relocated to the first floor unit of the apartment. Neither ‘dripping’ nor ‘leaking’ shower
faucet was noted in the invoice, regardless of unit number referenced
The referenced service call and message identify questions about
the completion of the job. The call was
a result of the 3rd unit tenant informing me that the tub faucet was
still leaking. This prompted the call to
the business inquiring if work was actually completed as initially defined and
scheduled. An issue was not raised to
the “On call Technician” as I had no reason to believe work was actually completed
as initially reported considering the persisting faucet leak reported by my
tenant. Furthermore, the technician informed
me that ANY trip to my property after hours would result in a fee. The technician made this statement after reporting
the work as complete. I have no control
over what limitations or fees are reported to me in a phone call, regardless of
the business’s defined emergency rates.
As the property owner I find it very reasonable that I
elected to pursue an alternative path to address my plumbing issue. The request for an invoice or company letter
head was a convenient excuse considering I had informed the business of my decision
to utilize a friend upon dissatisfaction of work reported as complete. I also find it convenient that the business
acknowledges clerical errors in the invoice to attempt to resolve my complaints
defined herein.
Regards,
*** ***