Revdex.com: I (may) accept their $credit however they have some facts incorrect How would I know that the product didn't work if I didn't try the product I used the second bottle thinking maybe it was just a stubborn clog However, when it didn't work at that point I picked up some Draino at the store The drain then began flowing freely It shouldn't matter that it was buy get free The first didn't work at all If I accept their $credit it still doesn't change the fact that their product which was very expensive didn't do the job I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
After reviewing this situation with my operations manager, speaking with the technicians assigned to this call and the office manager I agree that a $400 refund (50%) is due to the customer. It is unfortunate for both parties because the homeowner did not know how their sewer line worked...
PLUS the existing septic tank appeared to be in a normal state of operation. Fast forward to the end and all parties learned that the home was connected to city sewer and whomever did this work previously did not decommission the septic system (which is code). If the septic was decommissioned it would have been full of sand/gravel and that in and of itself would have pointed us in a different direction. Unfortunately it appeared to be in an operating condition and as a result our team got a false positive. Plumbers are trained to seek out obvious signs of sewer components in customer's yards/basements etc. Our team found the customer's septic system (homes in this area were all initially on septic). When we uncovered the septic system it was full of waste and in most cases a full septic causes backups in the home. Therefore the first logical course of business was to have the tank pumped (which the customer did). Once it was pumped our jetter was used to clean the tank and it's feeder lines. When we jetted the system it would not clear out causing us to believe there was structural damage. We then used our camera to see what was wrong in the line. But because the line was full of waste the camera was unable to illuminate anything. As a result we determined that the septic line was inoperable and suggested it be replaced. We all know now that this was a false positive and is the reason we are more than willing to refund the customer $400. Refunding the full amount is not reasonable because there was no intentional error on our part. And just like when one sees a doctor for an illness the doctor is not always right on his/her first determination. Please advise.Sincerely,Bob G[redacted] - Owner & President
To Whom it May Concern, On April 14th, our Technician did in fact install a customer supplied toilet for this customers home. The customer did, in fact, call back the next day to state that they had a leak and that they wanted us back out to take a look. When we went out to investigate we found that...
it appeared the problem/leak was coming from the area of the bathtub. The plumbing to the toilet is a significant amount of distance away from the tub. (See Exhibit A) As stated in the complaint from the customer, the homeowners were told to not use the toilet for 24 hours. In fact, the water to the toilet was shut off, therefore there is no way that the leak could have been produced from the toilet. As a courtesy, we sent a water restoration company out to the home to investigate. They left drying equipment at the customers home to dryout the area. They let the customer know that they would return the following day to check on things and investigate a bit more. When our restoration company Representative came out to the home the following morning they found that the customer had turned off all of the drying equipment and dehumidifier. This is showing neglect on the customers end. The water damage spread a large amount overnight due to the neglect of using the fans and dehumidifier as instructed. (See Exhibit C-The original leak. Exhibit B shows the spread overnight.) When the restoration company was out at the customers home, they asked for permission to cut into the ceiling, and received this verbal permission from the Mrs. of the home. When the ceiling was cut it did in fact prove that the issue was coming from the bathtub, NOT the toilet. Our manager that was at the home, did in fact fill the tub up to show the home owner that there were no leaks present, until the water was overflowing from the bathtub......it had nothing to do with the toilet. There are pictures showing that the plumbing that is leaking is coming from the bathtub (See Exhibit B) and not the toilet. The leak is coming from a jet on the center/bottom of the tub. We also would like it to be known that at NO cost to the customer, we sent out a water restoration company that set up drying equipment for the customer. We at Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Central Indiana stand behind our work. We warranty all work that we perform, and we stand by those warranties. It is very unfortunate that this particular situation occurred at the customers home. However, it is one of two things. It was a spot that was already there from prior to our service call or simply a coincidence. Mr Rooter feels that we are in no way responsible for the water damage in the customers home, and showed them this on 2 separate occasions. We apologize for any harsh feelings that the customer may feel towards us, but we feel that we went above and beyond to show the customer that the leak was not due to our work at the home, as well as sending out a water restoration company to do the dryout, when it was not from an error that our Technician made. We hope that this complaint can be resolved, and the customer can come to an understanding that although this was an unfortunate circumstance, it was not any error or fault of Mr. Rooter.
Revdex.com:
I (may) accept their $99 credit however they have some facts incorrect. How would I know that the product didn't work if I didn't try the product. I used the second bottle thinking maybe it was just a stubborn clog. However, when it didn't work at that point I picked up some Draino at the store. The drain then began flowing freely. It shouldn't matter that it was buy 2 get 1 free. The first 2 didn't work at all. If I accept their $99 credit it still doesn't change the fact that their product which was very expensive didn't do the job.
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
This customer did in fact purchase our product that we sell for drain cleaning. The customer took advantage of a promotion that we were running and purchased 3 bottles for the price of 2. The customer used 2 of the bottles of drain cleaner, then called to tell us that she felt it did not work, along...
with several other products she had purchased from other big box stores. We informed the customer that we could not refund her the money, as she had used the majority of the product. I later reached out to the customer and let her know that we could credit her account $99 for any other plumbing challenges she may have. We stand behind our product and feel that it is not fair to our company to issue the direct refund when she used the product. We apologized to her for any inconvenience and did attempt to rectify the situation by issuing her the credit to her account. Taylor Mr Rooter Plumbing of Central Indiana
Revdex.com: I (may) accept their $credit however they have some facts incorrect How would I know that the product didn't work if I didn't try the product I used the second bottle thinking maybe it was just a stubborn clog However, when it didn't work at that point I picked up some Draino at the store The drain then began flowing freely It shouldn't matter that it was buy get free The first didn't work at all If I accept their $credit it still doesn't change the fact that their product which was very expensive didn't do the job I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards, [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***
After reviewing this situation with my operations manager, speaking with the technicians assigned to this call and the office manager I agree that a $400 refund (50%) is due to the customer. It is unfortunate for both parties because the homeowner did not know how their sewer line worked...
PLUS the existing septic tank appeared to be in a normal state of operation. Fast forward to the end and all parties learned that the home was connected to city sewer and whomever did this work previously did not decommission the septic system (which is code). If the septic was decommissioned it would have been full of sand/gravel and that in and of itself would have pointed us in a different direction. Unfortunately it appeared to be in an operating condition and as a result our team got a false positive. Plumbers are trained to seek out obvious signs of sewer components in customer's yards/basements etc. Our team found the customer's septic system (homes in this area were all initially on septic). When we uncovered the septic system it was full of waste and in most cases a full septic causes backups in the home. Therefore the first logical course of business was to have the tank pumped (which the customer did). Once it was pumped our jetter was used to clean the tank and it's feeder lines. When we jetted the system it would not clear out causing us to believe there was structural damage. We then used our camera to see what was wrong in the line. But because the line was full of waste the camera was unable to illuminate anything. As a result we determined that the septic line was inoperable and suggested it be replaced. We all know now that this was a false positive and is the reason we are more than willing to refund the customer $400. Refunding the full amount is not reasonable because there was no intentional error on our part. And just like when one sees a doctor for an illness the doctor is not always right on his/her first determination. Please advise.Sincerely,Bob G[redacted] - Owner & President
To Whom it May Concern, On April 14th, our Technician did in fact install a customer supplied toilet for this customers home. The customer did, in fact, call back the next day to state that they had a leak and that they wanted us back out to take a look. When we went out to investigate we found that...
it appeared the problem/leak was coming from the area of the bathtub. The plumbing to the toilet is a significant amount of distance away from the tub. (See Exhibit A) As stated in the complaint from the customer, the homeowners were told to not use the toilet for 24 hours. In fact, the water to the toilet was shut off, therefore there is no way that the leak could have been produced from the toilet. As a courtesy, we sent a water restoration company out to the home to investigate. They left drying equipment at the customers home to dryout the area. They let the customer know that they would return the following day to check on things and investigate a bit more. When our restoration company Representative came out to the home the following morning they found that the customer had turned off all of the drying equipment and dehumidifier. This is showing neglect on the customers end. The water damage spread a large amount overnight due to the neglect of using the fans and dehumidifier as instructed. (See Exhibit C-The original leak. Exhibit B shows the spread overnight.) When the restoration company was out at the customers home, they asked for permission to cut into the ceiling, and received this verbal permission from the Mrs. of the home. When the ceiling was cut it did in fact prove that the issue was coming from the bathtub, NOT the toilet. Our manager that was at the home, did in fact fill the tub up to show the home owner that there were no leaks present, until the water was overflowing from the bathtub......it had nothing to do with the toilet. There are pictures showing that the plumbing that is leaking is coming from the bathtub (See Exhibit B) and not the toilet. The leak is coming from a jet on the center/bottom of the tub. We also would like it to be known that at NO cost to the customer, we sent out a water restoration company that set up drying equipment for the customer. We at Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Central Indiana stand behind our work. We warranty all work that we perform, and we stand by those warranties. It is very unfortunate that this particular situation occurred at the customers home. However, it is one of two things. It was a spot that was already there from prior to our service call or simply a coincidence. Mr Rooter feels that we are in no way responsible for the water damage in the customers home, and showed them this on 2 separate occasions. We apologize for any harsh feelings that the customer may feel towards us, but we feel that we went above and beyond to show the customer that the leak was not due to our work at the home, as well as sending out a water restoration company to do the dryout, when it was not from an error that our Technician made. We hope that this complaint can be resolved, and the customer can come to an understanding that although this was an unfortunate circumstance, it was not any error or fault of Mr. Rooter.
Revdex.com:
I (may) accept their $99 credit however they have some facts incorrect. How would I know that the product didn't work if I didn't try the product. I used the second bottle thinking maybe it was just a stubborn clog. However, when it didn't work at that point I picked up some Draino at the store. The drain then began flowing freely. It shouldn't matter that it was buy 2 get 1 free. The first 2 didn't work at all. If I accept their $99 credit it still doesn't change the fact that their product which was very expensive didn't do the job.
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]
This customer did in fact purchase our product that we sell for drain cleaning. The customer took advantage of a promotion that we were running and purchased 3 bottles for the price of 2. The customer used 2 of the bottles of drain cleaner, then called to tell us that she felt it did not work, along...
with several other products she had purchased from other big box stores. We informed the customer that we could not refund her the money, as she had used the majority of the product. I later reached out to the customer and let her know that we could credit her account $99 for any other plumbing challenges she may have. We stand behind our product and feel that it is not fair to our company to issue the direct refund when she used the product. We apologized to her for any inconvenience and did attempt to rectify the situation by issuing her the credit to her account. Taylor Mr Rooter Plumbing of Central Indiana