On Wednesday, March 1, office did speak to customer He called to say he had a leak and believed it was coming from the upstairs toilet He mentioned that he thought this should be covered under warranty and wanted reassurance that this would not cost him any more money It was explained to him that warranty on toilet repairs are usually only days from the date of repair but the office would look into Original repair was done on May 25, and a follow up call was done on June 8, Office staff said they could make an appointment to have a tech go out and diagnose what was causing the leak and Customer wanted to make sure that this was not going to cost him any more money as he already paid a lot for the original repair and he believed it should be covered under warranty Office explained that they couldn't guarantee that until a tech could go out and diagnose where and what was causing the leak and that couldn't be done over the phone Customer stated that he would talk to his wife and she would be calling back and that he didn't want anyone going out if it was going to cost him anything Office assumed his wife would call back Office staff had not received a call from the wife so they called the customer back on Friday, March 3, to follow up Customer answered and the office re-explained that it was necessary to have a tech go out and diagnose the problem and verify whether or not the problem is or isn't an unrelated issue and if it's covered Office stated that perhaps it wasn't explained as clearly the first time they spoke on Wednesday but wanted to make sure whether or not they wanted to schedule the appointment especially since the office had not heard from his wife yet After explaining in better detail that this was the first step to figuring out if the leak was related to the original repair customer agreed to schedule a follow up to diagnose the problem Original repair was done 1/months ago and the staff did have a chance to review the original invoice on the time frame of the warranty after the first phone call and customer does still have months left on his warranty Appointment is scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, At the end of the conversation the customer did tell the office staff that she had been very pleasant to talk to and deal with As to the amount of $the customer is asking for it is not clear why he is asking for this amount Customer does not state why or where this amount came from or why they should receive it and the Company has not had the opportunity to go out and verify whether or not this is a warranty issue There is not any additional charges related this this issue as the appointment isn't until this Wednesday The amount requested is unjustified and unfounded at this point and so is the complaint at this time This compliant should be removed as the turn around time was less than a week and a follow up appointment is already scheduled to verify if the problem is a warranty issue and nothing more than a simple misunderstanding and is already in the process to being resolved If you have any further questions please feel free to contact the office
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:KR&P failed to adhere to the design documents approved by the CityKR&P also failed meet the agreed upon schedule and to follow a construction directive resulting in the foundation being out of compliance with both the
Geotechnical report and the structural drawings KR&P caused damage to both the deck and the sidewalk during their work and video and photo documentation were sent to KR&P on several occasions In addition KR&P has copied my signature and afixed it to documents without my review or permission. After several failed attempts to get KR&P to discuss the matter I sent a formal letter on March 15th via certified mail to the address listed on their invoice. The letter outlines the above mentioned issues, however, the certified letter was returned to me unopened as refused by recipient
Sincerely,
*** ***
We wanted to let you know that *** with King Rooter did get in touch with us the evening this complaint was submitted He stated that he will honor the warranty on the service and the pumps He also stated that he would use the $4,we already spent towards a better solution to our
drainage issues He hasn't responded to our request to give us an estimate yet, for installing french drains, but the purpose for this complaint, which was for him to return our calls with regard to the warranty on the service and pumps, has been resolved Thanks, *** *** *** ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: No offer to fix the plumbing has been made. Only an offer for a supervisor to look at the leak. The Original toilet flange lasted 33 years. The replacement flange lasted 9 months and started leaking into our dining room. That is not acceptable. A quality company should stand behind their work. I wish the complaint to stay on the records for this company.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 office did speak to customer. He called to say he had a leak and believed it was coming from the upstairs toilet. He mentioned that he thought this should be covered under warranty and wanted reassurance that this would not cost him any...
more money. It was explained to him that normal warranty on toilet repairs are usually only 90 days from the date of repair but the office would look into. Original repair was done on May 25, 2016 and a follow up call was done on June 8, 2016. Office staff said they could make an appointment to have a tech go out and diagnose what was causing the leak and Customer wanted to make sure that this was not going to cost him any more money as he already paid a lot for the original repair and he believed it should be covered under warranty. Office explained that they couldn't guarantee that until a tech could go out and diagnose where and what was causing the leak and that couldn't be done over the phone. Customer stated that he would talk to his wife and she would be calling back and that he didn't want anyone going out if it was going to cost him anything. Office assumed his wife would call back. Office staff had not received a call from the wife so they called the customer back on Friday, March 3, 2017 to follow up. Customer answered and the office re-explained that it was necessary to have a tech go out and diagnose the problem and verify whether or not the problem is or isn't an unrelated issue and if it's covered. Office stated that perhaps it wasn't explained as clearly the first time they spoke on Wednesday but wanted to make sure whether or not they wanted to schedule the appointment especially since the office had not heard from his wife yet. After explaining in better detail that this was the first step to figuring out if the leak was related to the original repair customer agreed to schedule a follow up to diagnose the problem. Original repair was done 9 1/2 months ago and the staff did have a chance to review the original invoice on the time frame of the warranty after the first phone call and customer does still have 3 months left on his warranty. Appointment is scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, 2017. At the end of the conversation the customer did tell the office staff that she had been very pleasant to talk to and deal with. As to the amount of $550.00 the customer is asking for it is not clear why he is asking for this amount. Customer does not state why or where this amount came from or why they should receive it and the Company has not had the opportunity to go out and verify whether or not this is a warranty issue. There is not any additional charges related this this issue as the appointment isn't until this Wednesday. The amount requested is unjustified and unfounded at this point and so is the complaint at this time. This compliant should be removed as the turn around time was less than a week and a follow up appointment is already scheduled to verify if the problem is a warranty issue and nothing more than a simple misunderstanding and is already in the process to being resolved. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact the office.
On Wednesday, March 1, office did speak to customer He called to say he had a leak and believed it was coming from the upstairs toilet He mentioned that he thought this should be covered under warranty and wanted reassurance that this would not cost him any more money It was explained to him that warranty on toilet repairs are usually only days from the date of repair but the office would look into Original repair was done on May 25, and a follow up call was done on June 8, Office staff said they could make an appointment to have a tech go out and diagnose what was causing the leak and Customer wanted to make sure that this was not going to cost him any more money as he already paid a lot for the original repair and he believed it should be covered under warranty Office explained that they couldn't guarantee that until a tech could go out and diagnose where and what was causing the leak and that couldn't be done over the phone Customer stated that he would talk to his wife and she would be calling back and that he didn't want anyone going out if it was going to cost him anything Office assumed his wife would call back Office staff had not received a call from the wife so they called the customer back on Friday, March 3, to follow up Customer answered and the office re-explained that it was necessary to have a tech go out and diagnose the problem and verify whether or not the problem is or isn't an unrelated issue and if it's covered Office stated that perhaps it wasn't explained as clearly the first time they spoke on Wednesday but wanted to make sure whether or not they wanted to schedule the appointment especially since the office had not heard from his wife yet After explaining in better detail that this was the first step to figuring out if the leak was related to the original repair customer agreed to schedule a follow up to diagnose the problem Original repair was done 1/months ago and the staff did have a chance to review the original invoice on the time frame of the warranty after the first phone call and customer does still have months left on his warranty Appointment is scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, At the end of the conversation the customer did tell the office staff that she had been very pleasant to talk to and deal with As to the amount of $the customer is asking for it is not clear why he is asking for this amount Customer does not state why or where this amount came from or why they should receive it and the Company has not had the opportunity to go out and verify whether or not this is a warranty issue There is not any additional charges related this this issue as the appointment isn't until this Wednesday The amount requested is unjustified and unfounded at this point and so is the complaint at this time This compliant should be removed as the turn around time was less than a week and a follow up appointment is already scheduled to verify if the problem is a warranty issue and nothing more than a simple misunderstanding and is already in the process to being resolved If you have any further questions please feel free to contact the office
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:KR&P failed to adhere to the design documents approved by the CityKR&P also failed meet the agreed upon schedule and to follow a construction directive resulting in the foundation being out of compliance with both the
Geotechnical report and the structural drawings KR&P caused damage to both the deck and the sidewalk during their work and video and photo documentation were sent to KR&P on several occasions In addition KR&P has copied my signature and afixed it to documents without my review or permission. After several failed attempts to get KR&P to discuss the matter I sent a formal letter on March 15th via certified mail to the address listed on their invoice. The letter outlines the above mentioned issues, however, the certified letter was returned to me unopened as refused by recipient
Sincerely,
*** ***
We wanted to let you know that *** with King Rooter did get in touch with us the evening this complaint was submitted He stated that he will honor the warranty on the service and the pumps He also stated that he would use the $4,we already spent towards a better solution to our
drainage issues He hasn't responded to our request to give us an estimate yet, for installing french drains, but the purpose for this complaint, which was for him to return our calls with regard to the warranty on the service and pumps, has been resolved Thanks, *** *** *** ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: No offer to fix the plumbing has been made. Only an offer for a supervisor to look at the leak. The Original toilet flange lasted 33 years. The replacement flange lasted 9 months and started leaking into our dining room. That is not acceptable. A quality company should stand behind their work. I wish the complaint to stay on the records for this company.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 office did speak to customer. He called to say he had a leak and believed it was coming from the upstairs toilet. He mentioned that he thought this should be covered under warranty and wanted reassurance that this would not cost him any...
more money. It was explained to him that normal warranty on toilet repairs are usually only 90 days from the date of repair but the office would look into. Original repair was done on May 25, 2016 and a follow up call was done on June 8, 2016. Office staff said they could make an appointment to have a tech go out and diagnose what was causing the leak and Customer wanted to make sure that this was not going to cost him any more money as he already paid a lot for the original repair and he believed it should be covered under warranty. Office explained that they couldn't guarantee that until a tech could go out and diagnose where and what was causing the leak and that couldn't be done over the phone. Customer stated that he would talk to his wife and she would be calling back and that he didn't want anyone going out if it was going to cost him anything. Office assumed his wife would call back. Office staff had not received a call from the wife so they called the customer back on Friday, March 3, 2017 to follow up. Customer answered and the office re-explained that it was necessary to have a tech go out and diagnose the problem and verify whether or not the problem is or isn't an unrelated issue and if it's covered. Office stated that perhaps it wasn't explained as clearly the first time they spoke on Wednesday but wanted to make sure whether or not they wanted to schedule the appointment especially since the office had not heard from his wife yet. After explaining in better detail that this was the first step to figuring out if the leak was related to the original repair customer agreed to schedule a follow up to diagnose the problem. Original repair was done 9 1/2 months ago and the staff did have a chance to review the original invoice on the time frame of the warranty after the first phone call and customer does still have 3 months left on his warranty. Appointment is scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, 2017. At the end of the conversation the customer did tell the office staff that she had been very pleasant to talk to and deal with. As to the amount of $550.00 the customer is asking for it is not clear why he is asking for this amount. Customer does not state why or where this amount came from or why they should receive it and the Company has not had the opportunity to go out and verify whether or not this is a warranty issue. There is not any additional charges related this this issue as the appointment isn't until this Wednesday. The amount requested is unjustified and unfounded at this point and so is the complaint at this time. This compliant should be removed as the turn around time was less than a week and a follow up appointment is already scheduled to verify if the problem is a warranty issue and nothing more than a simple misunderstanding and is already in the process to being resolved. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact the office.