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 $204 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 day. As my major concern was not with his $40 service charge but after walking in the house with no notepad no tools charging me for a 10min visit of which only 3 were in my house and then breaking something and leaving me responsible for repairs. It cost me more to repair the damage done during the visit, more of my time, and an inconvenience I didn't need. I 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 sfault. Ive completed all of the repairs on my own as I already knew there was no intentions of them doing it in a timely manner. I'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, 2016 was not accurately noted in any previous invoice or write-up
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]
[redacted]
[redacted]The allegations of this complaint are completely false. Currently Ms. [redacted]’s account is delinquent. Legal action will be pursued if balance is not paid in full within 30 days.South Side Plumbing...
& Heating Co. was contracted to install a new boiler by Peoples Gas Co. via Conservation Consultants Inc. 10-19-17, contract# [redacted]. (See enclosed). Once contract was completed South Side Plumbing & Heating received payment in full from Conservation Consultants Inc. The 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 1 year part warranty and 20 year heat exchanger warranty. Neither 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 heat. Ms. [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card number. The technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty control board. The Dunkirk supplier was closed for the weekend and would reopen Monday allowing South Side Plumbing & Heating to submit a warranty claim and receive warranted parts. Ms. [redacted] was charged $191.25 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 Dunkirk. South Side Plumbing & Heating returned to Ms. [redacted]’s residence and replaced the failed parts. Heat was restored to the residence at this time. In 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 heat. Ms. [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card number. The technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty thermostat. At this time Ms. [redacted] was advised the thermostat was faulty and a cost to replace the thermostat in which she declined. The technician completed paperwork and requested payment for service. At this time Ms. [redacted] refused to render payment of $191.25. My technician was advised she was not paying because this service should be under warranty and when the previous technician was on site 2-19-18 he should have replaced the thermostat then. Ms. [redacted] was advised the thermostat was existing to her old system and was not replaced during boiler installation. The installation contract #[redacted] did not include thermostat replacement. During the previous technicians visit on 2-19-18 the thermostat was not faulty. If the thermostat was faulty the boiler would not have operated for nearly a month. South Side Plumbing & Heating does not replace unneeded parts. Ms. [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 3-10-18 of $191.25 be paid in full within 30 days or Ms. [redacted] will be facing legal actions.SincerelyN. J[redacted]V.P.
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 $204 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 day. As my major concern was not with his $40 service charge but after walking in the house with no notepad no tools charging me for a 10min visit of which only 3 were in my house and then breaking something and leaving me responsible for repairs. It cost me more to repair the damage done during the visit, more of my time, and an inconvenience I didn't need. I 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 sfault. Ive completed all of the repairs on my own as I already knew there was no intentions of them doing it in a timely manner. I'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, 2016 was not accurately noted in any previous invoice or write-up
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]
[redacted]
[redacted]The allegations of this complaint are completely false. Currently Ms. [redacted]’s account is delinquent. Legal action will be pursued if balance is not paid in full within 30 days.South Side Plumbing...
& Heating Co. was contracted to install a new boiler by Peoples Gas Co. via Conservation Consultants Inc. 10-19-17, contract# [redacted]. (See enclosed). Once contract was completed South Side Plumbing & Heating received payment in full from Conservation Consultants Inc. The 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 1 year part warranty and 20 year heat exchanger warranty. Neither 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 heat. Ms. [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card number. The technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty control board. The Dunkirk supplier was closed for the weekend and would reopen Monday allowing South Side Plumbing & Heating to submit a warranty claim and receive warranted parts. Ms. [redacted] was charged $191.25 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 Dunkirk. South Side Plumbing & Heating returned to Ms. [redacted]’s residence and replaced the failed parts. Heat was restored to the residence at this time. In 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 heat. Ms. [redacted] was advised of our labor rates and secured the service call by rendering a credit card number. The technician arrived onsite, troubleshot boiler to a faulty thermostat. At this time Ms. [redacted] was advised the thermostat was faulty and a cost to replace the thermostat in which she declined. The technician completed paperwork and requested payment for service. At this time Ms. [redacted] refused to render payment of $191.25. My technician was advised she was not paying because this service should be under warranty and when the previous technician was on site 2-19-18 he should have replaced the thermostat then. Ms. [redacted] was advised the thermostat was existing to her old system and was not replaced during boiler installation. The installation contract #[redacted] did not include thermostat replacement. During the previous technicians visit on 2-19-18 the thermostat was not faulty. If the thermostat was faulty the boiler would not have operated for nearly a month. South Side Plumbing & Heating does not replace unneeded parts. Ms. [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 3-10-18 of $191.25 be paid in full within 30 days or Ms. [redacted] will be facing legal actions.SincerelyN. J[redacted]V.P.