Hannon, D J & Sons Inc

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.
At no time did the technician indicate their would be an additional charge for installation.  Had I known there was going to be an additional charge, I would've installed the toilet myself.  When the technician was here, the only questionable service was the replacement of the toilet itself, which is why I contacted the insurance.  I didn't inquire about the installation service with the insurance, since I didn't see any reason to (based on comments from DJ Hannon technician).  When I contacted the insurance company my only question was about coverage for the fixture itself.  They didn't mention the installation and neither did I, again, because of my understanding that the service would be covered by the existing claim, based on conversations with DJ Hannon's technician.  Not only, did the technician failed to mention a service charge for installation, but he readily asked me to contact the office on Monday to schedule the installation to finish the job, once the issue of the fixture was resolved.  Furthermore, when I contacted the office to schedule the service the following Monday, a service charge for the installation was never mentioned.  Once more, had I known there would be a charge I would've installed the fixture myself.Additionally, and possibly more importantly, DJ Hannon had serviced my downstairs bathroom pipes in the fall, a service that took several days in the making, for which I was only charged once, with the understanding that it was all be part of one claim.  Therefore, bar their indication that the installation service was a separate charge, I understood it would be covered under the claim that caused them to come in the first place (toilet not flushing).
Regards,
[redacted]

February 1, 2016Revdex.com[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]RE: [redacted]Dear [redacted]This letter is in response to your letter dated 1 /5/16, in regards to Ms. [redacted].D.J. Hannon was first dispatched and called out on 1/2/16 to...

Ms. [redacted]'s residence, by [redacted], an insurance provided through ** Water Company, for a toilet overflowing.Work was completed, through [redacted], on 1/2/16. Technician ran closet auger through toilet. He then pulled toilet to check flange and nothing found to be stuck in toilet or flange. Tech concluded that toilet was old and not operating properly and recommended installation of new toilet. All of this work was billed and covered by [redacted] insurance claim.Tech then advised customer, it was her responsibility to contact her insurance ([redacted]), to check if installation of a new toilet was covered under her plan. She was then advised, by [redacted], that no fixtures, including toilets, were covered under her plan. If no fixtures are covered, that would mean labor would not be covered either. As stated in her complaint, “I was told fixtures were not covered”. Toilets are a fixture.Ms. [redacted] contacted our office on 1/4/16, to schedule installation of a customer provided toilet. Tech completed toilet installation on 1/6/16. Upon completion, tech asked for payment of $115.00 (1 1/2 hrs. labor, $70.00/hr. plus $10.00 supply line). D.J. Hannon’s terms of payment is due upon completion, which is stated at the bottom of all service orders. Customer refused to pay, because she stated this service was covered by [redacted].Through multiple phone calls with [redacted] and Ms. [redacted], [redacted] agreed to pay $10.00 for the supply line, because supply lines are covered under her plan, leaving the customer with a balance of $105.00 (labor only).In closing, I do not understand Ms. [redacted]’s complaint. She was informed multiple times that fixtures (toilets) are not covered, meaning labor to install a toilet would not be covered either. Please be advised that the balance of $105.00 is still due and awaiting payment.If you should have any further questions, please contact our office at the number listed below. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.Sincerely,Susan H[redacted]Owner, Sec/Tres.

Review: I was told that the job invoice # 68694 was an all day job and would cost $990.00. I freely admit to agreeing to that. I figured $70 per hour multiplied by 8 hours = $560 in labor + materials. That sounded ok to me. However, the plumber was not there for an all day job. In fact, according to my tenant the plumber was only there for about half a day. When I called to question why I was still charged $990.00 for a half day job, I was told but that is what you agreed to. No, I agreed to pay for an all day job, not a half day job. When I asked for an itemized statement of labor and materials, they couldnt provide it for obvious reasons (theyd have to list labor as $140/hour if they tried it). I was told a manager would call me back and no one did. I wont even get into the fact that the gas company only found a leak in an elbow and not every piece of pipe in the basement needed replaced nor do I want to get into the fact that I priced the materials after the fact. Then I had to call them back for the job invoice #69395 because the tenant could still smell gas at the flex line in the basement. The plumber came out right away (appreciated) and poured soapy water over it to check for leaks which I understand is common practice. He said he didnt see any leaks. He then said that the gas company's instruments are "ultra sensitive" and may have detected something else. He then went out to his van, returned with two pipe wrenches and tightened it. I have had no complaints from the tenants since he tightened it.Not only did they make me feel so violated after the first job, but then they charged me again for someone to come out and tighten the flex line that they installed??? It would have been different if he had said there were no leaks and just left but that isn't what happened. When I questioned this invoice, I was told well I have to pay my guys. I was also told a manager would call me back and no one did.Desired Settlement: I would like the $70.00 back for the follow up visit in which the plumber tightened the flex line with pipe wrenches. I would also like an itemized statement from the first job for my own peace of mind and accounting purposes. If the plumber would have run into problems and took 3 days and excavator to complete the job they would have charged me more than the quoted $990. That works both ways. If the job took less time and materials then I should have been charged under the quote.

Review: I have plumbing insurance through the water company. I was having issues with my upstairs toilet not flushing (overflowing). DJ Hannon was called for issue resolution. On 1/2/16 they came and told me the toilet needed replaced. Company employee told me to call insurance company to find out if toilet was covered and to call them back on Monday toilet installation. I was told fixtures were not covered. I purchased a toilet on 1/2/16 and contacted company for installation on 1/4/16. Company employee came on 1/6/16 to install toilet and asked me for payment of approximately $185.00. I was surprised as I understood this was covered under the initial claim to resolve overflowing toilet issue. He indicated he would speak with the office on the matter. Their office called me and I explained at no time was I told this was a separate charge. In fact, their employee just basically told me to call for the installation, and when I called to schedule it no one indicated there would be a separate charge.Desired Settlement: They have sent me a bill for $105.00, which I refuse to pay. Had I known the installation would be a separate charge, I would have done it myself. At no time was I told this would be a separate charge. Charges should be waived.

Business

Response:

February 1, 2016Revdex.com[redacted]

[redacted]RE: [redacted]Dear [redacted]This letter is in response to your letter dated 1 /5/16, in regards to Ms. [redacted].D.J. Hannon was first dispatched and called out on 1/2/16 to Ms. [redacted]'s residence, by [redacted], an insurance provided through ** Water Company, for a toilet overflowing.Work was completed, through [redacted], on 1/2/16. Technician ran closet auger through toilet. He then pulled toilet to check flange and nothing found to be stuck in toilet or flange. Tech concluded that toilet was old and not operating properly and recommended installation of new toilet. All of this work was billed and covered by [redacted] insurance claim.Tech then advised customer, it was her responsibility to contact her insurance ([redacted]), to check if installation of a new toilet was covered under her plan. She was then advised, by [redacted], that no fixtures, including toilets, were covered under her plan. If no fixtures are covered, that would mean labor would not be covered either. As stated in her complaint, “I was told fixtures were not covered”. Toilets are a fixture.Ms. [redacted] contacted our office on 1/4/16, to schedule installation of a customer provided toilet. Tech completed toilet installation on 1/6/16. Upon completion, tech asked for payment of $115.00 (1 1/2 hrs. labor, $70.00/hr. plus $10.00 supply line). D.J. Hannon’s terms of payment is due upon completion, which is stated at the bottom of all service orders. Customer refused to pay, because she stated this service was covered by [redacted].Through multiple phone calls with [redacted] and Ms. [redacted], [redacted] agreed to pay $10.00 for the supply line, because supply lines are covered under her plan, leaving the customer with a balance of $105.00 (labor only).In closing, I do not understand Ms. [redacted]’s complaint. She was informed multiple times that fixtures (toilets) are not covered, meaning labor to install a toilet would not be covered either. Please be advised that the balance of $105.00 is still due and awaiting payment.If you should have any further questions, please contact our office at the number listed below. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.Sincerely,Susan H[redacted]Owner, Sec/Tres.