Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/25) */
In August 2014 Janecky Plumbing installed a faucet at customer's residence. The faucet was provided by Ms. [redacted] and was out of its packaging when provided to Janecky employee. The faucet was installed and the piping in the bathtub area was...
redone. The customer paid for the work without incident. Over a year later, on October 2, 2015 customer called complaining of a small leak around faucet that was previously installed. Janecky Plumbing sent a plumber to remove the previously-installed faucet, cap the water lines, and replace the drain assemblies in a separate bathroom. For this labor customer was charged and paid $496.00 without incident. Plumber discovered a hairline crack in the faucet assembly. Crack could have been caused from rust, faulty equipment, wear and tear, or other sources. In late October customer complained that she wanted her October 2015 payment refunded and a new faucet installed at Janecky Plumbing's expense. Janecky plumbing and customer went back and forth in email correspondence about what steps would be taken to correct the problem and to schedule a time for a Janecky employee to return to customer's residence as she requested. On November 18, 2015 Janecky's attorney sent customer a letter explaining that if customer wants a refund, reimbursement, and replacement, she would be required to work through Janecky's insurance company. Janecky offered to send someone to customer's residence on November 18, 2015 to pick up the old faucet in order to have it inspected by insurance company's engineers to determine the cause of the crack and resulting leak. Janecky explained to customer that if it was determined that Janecky had done anything incorrectly when installing the faucet, customer would be compensated appropriately. In an email dated November 19, 2015 customer told Janecky Plumbing she was not willing to work through the insurance company and that she was "100% unwilling to allow Janecky Plumbing to waste any more of my time... I have made arrangements for an alternate plumber to come out" to replace the faucet.
Janecky Plumbing maintains that the leak in the faucet was not due to any negligence or installation error committed by Janecky Plumbing or its employees. Janecky Plumbing offered to work with the customer and the insurance company to investigate the source of the leak and to reimburse the customer and replace the faucet if it was determined that Janecky Plumbing made an error during installation. Customer refused to work with insurance company and instead wanted to be reimbursed for her October 2015 payment with no questions asked. Keep in mind that a portion of the work done in October 2015 for which the customer demanded to be reimbursed was not related to the leaky faucet-- it was for work done in a separate bathroom.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
1) It was impossible to work with Janecky's insurance company because the plumber in question on Oct. 2, 2015 TOOK the cracked union piece with him. I've asked multiple times, including in response to the family law attorney Janecky used in sending the letter, for that to be returned and Janecky has repeatedly failed to do so. Most likely because it would prove that a repair was attempted in 2014. The request for the insurance company was to inspect the cracked part and they knew it was in THEIR possession thus rendering that "offer" impossible. There was thus no point (and it was a waste of my time) to have the insurance company out to inspect something that wasn't even there.
2) Outside professionals with experience in plumbing have stated that a) rust will not cause the kind of crack seen in the picture, b)even if rust *could* do that, all of the house's pipes would be leaking, not the newest plumbing component to be installed alone, c) the type of crack seen, as well as evidence of other attempted repairs to the union, suggest that it was damaged at the point of installation in 2014, most likely due to being over-tightened.
3) When [redacted] Janecky himself was asked over 3 times to give an *reasonable* alternate explanation for the cracked part in a very infrequently used bathroom roughly one year after installation, he was unable to do so.
4) [redacted] Janecky agreed to make the repair and restoration in question initially and then two days before he was scheduled to do so, he has an attorney specializing in child support and paternity cases send me a quasi-threatening letter making the aforementioned impossible to meet request to work with the insurance company. That showed me that there is not ever going to be any real good faith effort on the part of Janecky Plumbing to fix this problem. As a result, I no longer trust them to do the work. They can still make restitution for the damage they created in 2014 with poor workmanship when they cracked them part from over tightening but they are refusing to do so.
5) I want the damaged union in question returned to me as requested 4 other times should I want proof in a small claims court case (if necessary). The plumber left all parts EXCEPT the damaged part and [redacted] Janecky knows it.
6) There is virtually no way that the insurance company who would be responsible for paying out for the poor workmanship claim is an unbiased source that would actually find the crack was caused by their insured. If Janecky was truly sincere, he would first return the part and then second he would pay for an independent agent to inspect the part and make an assessment of the likelihood the crack came from over tightening or rust.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/12/10) */
1. Janecky Plumbing's employee did not take the cracked Union out of the customer's residence. It was left there at the conclusion of the October 2015 service call. In any event, Janecky Plumbing believes that the union was faulty due to a manufacturing defect and the insurance company's engineers would have been able to validate or invalidate that claim by testing either the hot or cold Union. Therefore, even if the customer cannot locate the cracked hot water Union, the cold water Union could have been tested by the insurance company and if not deemed faulty due to a manufacturing defect, the customer could have been compensated accordingly. It is important to recall that the faucet was provided by the customer with no packaging and no indication that it was new at the time of installation.
2. [redacted] ajanecky did offer possible explanations for why the Union was cracked. Customer did not agree with those explanations but that does not render them unreasonable.
3. Janecky's attorney did not send a threatening letter to customer. The letter indicated that Janecky Plumbing would like to work with the customer to resolve the dispute but that if reimbursement and monetary damages were going to be considered, Janecky's insurance company would have to be involved. This is a standard practice. Customer refused to cooperate with insurance company and because Janecky Plumbing is confident that there was no error in installation (evidenced by the more than 1 year delay between installation and leak), we simply cannot give in to customer's demands.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/25) */
In August 2014 Janecky Plumbing installed a faucet at customer's residence. The faucet was provided by Ms. [redacted] and was out of its packaging when provided to Janecky employee. The faucet was installed and the piping in the bathtub area was...
redone. The customer paid for the work without incident. Over a year later, on October 2, 2015 customer called complaining of a small leak around faucet that was previously installed. Janecky Plumbing sent a plumber to remove the previously-installed faucet, cap the water lines, and replace the drain assemblies in a separate bathroom. For this labor customer was charged and paid $496.00 without incident. Plumber discovered a hairline crack in the faucet assembly. Crack could have been caused from rust, faulty equipment, wear and tear, or other sources. In late October customer complained that she wanted her October 2015 payment refunded and a new faucet installed at Janecky Plumbing's expense. Janecky plumbing and customer went back and forth in email correspondence about what steps would be taken to correct the problem and to schedule a time for a Janecky employee to return to customer's residence as she requested. On November 18, 2015 Janecky's attorney sent customer a letter explaining that if customer wants a refund, reimbursement, and replacement, she would be required to work through Janecky's insurance company. Janecky offered to send someone to customer's residence on November 18, 2015 to pick up the old faucet in order to have it inspected by insurance company's engineers to determine the cause of the crack and resulting leak. Janecky explained to customer that if it was determined that Janecky had done anything incorrectly when installing the faucet, customer would be compensated appropriately. In an email dated November 19, 2015 customer told Janecky Plumbing she was not willing to work through the insurance company and that she was "100% unwilling to allow Janecky Plumbing to waste any more of my time... I have made arrangements for an alternate plumber to come out" to replace the faucet.
Janecky Plumbing maintains that the leak in the faucet was not due to any negligence or installation error committed by Janecky Plumbing or its employees. Janecky Plumbing offered to work with the customer and the insurance company to investigate the source of the leak and to reimburse the customer and replace the faucet if it was determined that Janecky Plumbing made an error during installation. Customer refused to work with insurance company and instead wanted to be reimbursed for her October 2015 payment with no questions asked. Keep in mind that a portion of the work done in October 2015 for which the customer demanded to be reimbursed was not related to the leaky faucet-- it was for work done in a separate bathroom.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
1) It was impossible to work with Janecky's insurance company because the plumber in question on Oct. 2, 2015 TOOK the cracked union piece with him. I've asked multiple times, including in response to the family law attorney Janecky used in sending the letter, for that to be returned and Janecky has repeatedly failed to do so. Most likely because it would prove that a repair was attempted in 2014. The request for the insurance company was to inspect the cracked part and they knew it was in THEIR possession thus rendering that "offer" impossible. There was thus no point (and it was a waste of my time) to have the insurance company out to inspect something that wasn't even there.
2) Outside professionals with experience in plumbing have stated that a) rust will not cause the kind of crack seen in the picture, b)even if rust *could* do that, all of the house's pipes would be leaking, not the newest plumbing component to be installed alone, c) the type of crack seen, as well as evidence of other attempted repairs to the union, suggest that it was damaged at the point of installation in 2014, most likely due to being over-tightened.
3) When [redacted] Janecky himself was asked over 3 times to give an *reasonable* alternate explanation for the cracked part in a very infrequently used bathroom roughly one year after installation, he was unable to do so.
4) [redacted] Janecky agreed to make the repair and restoration in question initially and then two days before he was scheduled to do so, he has an attorney specializing in child support and paternity cases send me a quasi-threatening letter making the aforementioned impossible to meet request to work with the insurance company. That showed me that there is not ever going to be any real good faith effort on the part of Janecky Plumbing to fix this problem. As a result, I no longer trust them to do the work. They can still make restitution for the damage they created in 2014 with poor workmanship when they cracked them part from over tightening but they are refusing to do so.
5) I want the damaged union in question returned to me as requested 4 other times should I want proof in a small claims court case (if necessary). The plumber left all parts EXCEPT the damaged part and [redacted] Janecky knows it.
6) There is virtually no way that the insurance company who would be responsible for paying out for the poor workmanship claim is an unbiased source that would actually find the crack was caused by their insured. If Janecky was truly sincere, he would first return the part and then second he would pay for an independent agent to inspect the part and make an assessment of the likelihood the crack came from over tightening or rust.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/12/10) */
1. Janecky Plumbing's employee did not take the cracked Union out of the customer's residence. It was left there at the conclusion of the October 2015 service call. In any event, Janecky Plumbing believes that the union was faulty due to a manufacturing defect and the insurance company's engineers would have been able to validate or invalidate that claim by testing either the hot or cold Union. Therefore, even if the customer cannot locate the cracked hot water Union, the cold water Union could have been tested by the insurance company and if not deemed faulty due to a manufacturing defect, the customer could have been compensated accordingly. It is important to recall that the faucet was provided by the customer with no packaging and no indication that it was new at the time of installation.
2. [redacted] ajanecky did offer possible explanations for why the Union was cracked. Customer did not agree with those explanations but that does not render them unreasonable.
3. Janecky's attorney did not send a threatening letter to customer. The letter indicated that Janecky Plumbing would like to work with the customer to resolve the dispute but that if reimbursement and monetary damages were going to be considered, Janecky's insurance company would have to be involved. This is a standard practice. Customer refused to cooperate with insurance company and because Janecky Plumbing is confident that there was no error in installation (evidenced by the more than 1 year delay between installation and leak), we simply cannot give in to customer's demands.