Lawn Systems Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/23) */
Upon review of the account history, there are inconsistencies with the customer's recount of eventsThe backflow damage was discovered in November of 2013, and the customer signed off on the service sheet from her winterization which stated
that there was damage to the backflow, indicating she was aware of the issueThe PVC fitting was not repaired until May of 2015, which was well after the customer had been informed of the damage to the backflow
On November 28th 2013, Lawn Systems sent a technician out to the customer's home to winterize her irrigation system at her requestThis was well after the first freeze of the season, and the backflow was damaged beyond repairIt is the homeowner's responsibility to call us to set up the appointment for winterization, and due to the fact that there were multiple freezes prior to the customer's winterization she had to replace her backflow at her expenseShe was made aware of the irreparable damage to the backflow at the time of the winterization, and signed the service sheet where this was noted
The customer coordinated the backflow replacement through Lawn Systems, and device was replaced and tested on May 5th, Lawn Systems then returned to turn the system on for the season and make adjustments for coverageThe system operated that Summer, and Lawn Systems returned to Winterize on October 28th,
On April 22nd 2015, Lawn Systems was called out to do the yearly activation and backflow testingThe technician completed these services without issues and collected payment and a signature from the homeowner
Several weeks later on May 6th, 2014, Lawn Systems returned at the customer's request to check into a possible leakThe technician discovered that a PVC fitting on the valve box had split, and the issue was repairedDue to the fact that the system is seven years old, this is could be attributed to wear and tearIt is also possible that the PVC fitting was weakened by freeze damage from the excessively late winterization in It is clear that this fitting failed sometime after the initial activation once the system had been operating for a number of weeksFollowing this repair, Lawn Systems returned at the request of the customer to inspect the systemThe technician ran through the entire system and made adjustmentsThe customer was not charged for this visit
None of the staff at Lawn Systems were unaware of any dissatisfaction on the customer's partWe are not able to reimburse the customer for the backflow replacement due to the fact that it was a direct result of her late winterizationWe stand behind the PVC repairs and maintain that they are legitimate and had nothing to do with the replacement of the backflowThe replacement of the backflow and PVC repairs at the valve box had nothing to do with one another, which is why the customer was charged for both servicesWe stand behind these and any other repairs we make for one year, except in the case of damage due to freeze, lawn equipment, ectRegarding the high water bill, we suggest that the customer call her water company as they have been known to work with their customers to lower their billsIf the customer needs help initiating that contact, we can help her with the required paperwork
We hope that this clears up any confusion regarding the course of events, and we are able to provide original service sheets which have been summarized above upon request

On 8/25/15, Lawn Systems, Inc. went to the customer's property to repair a leak. He requested the secretary to make a note on his service sheet to give a price estimate before executing any repairs. The technician repaired a cracked PVC 90 fitting on the mainline just before the first valve on the...

upper manifold. This repair required several PVC fittings as well as glue to set the fitting. Upon reparation of this leak, the technician performed a pressure test which held tight, indicating there were no additional leaks at that time. Technician has noted that the repair is complete and the service sheet was signed by the customer and paid for via check.
Roughly two weeks later on 9/10/15, the same technician was sent back to the customer's property to again repair a leak. Upon inspection of the system, the technician repaired a threaded PVC 90 fitting on the lower section of the main line going into the valve box. Different parts were used during this repair than were the original repair, and although the area of this leak was near the original, it was in fact a different area than the one Lawn Systems, Inc. was hired to repair on 8/25/15. The technician has also noted on the service ticket that the main line is shallow, which leaves it prone to damage from lawn equipment, such as lawn mowers and aeration machines. The technician has noted that he has left the water off as per the customer's request, and that we should return to complete repairs. This sheet was also signed by and paid for by the customer via check. The customer was at this point satisfied with the work performed and expressed no concerns to the technician.
Lawn Systems, Inc. then sent another technician to the customer's property on 9/11/15 to turn the water back on. According to our technician, once the water was activated water began to pool in the lawn at which time the technician contacted the customer via telephone. Shortly thereafter, the customer arrived at the house and the technician suggested that the entire valve manifold should be replaced to avoid future issues. The customer made the decision not to have the these repairs made and instead had the technician turn the system back off and save the repairs for a later date. The customer was not charged for this trip.
On 9/14/15, the second technician was again sent to the property to turn the water back on. When the technician attempted to again restart the water, the system was not pressurized. Technician noticed no obvious leaks. He then turned the backflow preventer on to full rate of flow, and water began seeping up from the ground. As this was occurring, the customer arrived to the property. He asked the technician what the cause of the leak was, at which point the technician began to excavate the area. The customer was present for some of the repairs, and discussed aspects of the repair with the technician. Upon further inspection, the technician discovered that a female adapter just before the manifold had split, causing the leak. This was repaired. Upon completion of the repair, the technician cleaned up the area and filled the hole in with soil to minimize disruption of the customer's lawn. Mr. The customer did not pay for the work performed at this visit as the service manager wanted to cross reference what had happened at previous visits before billing. Upon the service manager's review of previous repairs, the billable portion of the service was invoiced and mailed to the customer.
On 9/18/15, the customer contacted Lawn Systems, Inc. and requested that he be reimbursed for all of the repairs. Mr. [redacted] took the customers call on that day, and agreed to check into the repair history and provide a call back once he had reviewed the paperwork and spoke with the technicians.
Upon review of the previous repairs, Mr. [redacted] reached out to the customer and offered to come out himself and take a look at the system and investigate the previous repairs further. The customer declined the offer, stating that the only course of action he would accept would be a full refund.
The customer came to us as a service customer in 2007, and we have no record of the age of the irrigation system. It is likely over 25 years old, and it is possible that the system is failing due to wear and tear over the years, although anything other than speculation is impossible as it is an underground system that was installed by a contractor other than Lawn Systems, Inc. Lawn Systems, Inc. stands behind all repairs that we have made. Each time the technicians were sent to the property they made legitimate repairs on a new leak, and therefore the new repairs were billed accordingly. We have been very responsive to the customer's requests for service, and all of the invoices he has received have been legitimate, including the invoice for $308.50 that he is unwilling to pay. Additionally, we have in good faith offered to inspect the repairs made with customer and clear up any confusion and he refused that offer. We hope that this rebuttal helps clear up any confusion, and gives the customer a better idea of what exactly we did and why. If necessary, we can provide copies of the original service repair sheets as well. If the customer decides he would like us come out to inspect the repairs, we would still be glad to set that up with him.