Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/02/09) */
***
February 8,
***
On January 25, we received a service call from *** with *** they were at *** residence
at *** pumping out his septic tank due to the fact his septic pump was not working and also said the pipe between the house and septic tank was leaking and would require a length of pipe being replaced
For safety reason we must send men to work on a septic tank so we dispatched men to ***Upon arrival they diagnosed the septic pump was not workingThe sewage pipe going from the house to the solids tank they were advised was cracked and leakingThe men changed the septic pump and tested then proceeded to drain the ground water from the trench with a sump pump this taking approximately minutes to lower the water table to be able to replace the pipeThen the length of pipe was replacedThis pipe goes thru the side of the septic tank and on the tank there is a grommet/seal normally this doesn't require any extra sealantThe grommet/seal looked to be in good as new shape and also felt good and sealed when they proceeded to push the new section of pipe thru this grommet/seal so they used their professional judgement and only applied glue to the joints and did not apply any other sealant to the tank end with the grommet/seal, and advised the homeowner he could fill in the trenchHowever after the men left the trench filled with ground water again(Do to the fact the property/landscaping pushes all the ground water towards the house) and apparently leaked around the grommet/seal
*** came to my office and requested we return and apply sealantWe returned the next morning and once again due to the water in the trench had to pump out the water in order to apply hydraulic cement to the grommet/seal area
*** phoned the office after the invoice was emailed to him for returning and having to drain the trench for a second time and applying the hydraulic cement and voiced he was not happy being charged a second time whereas this should have been done in the first place*** in my office advised him she could reduce the cost of the service call by hours Labour =$*** plus taxAt the time he agreedThen he phoned back and left a message how no he didn't agree with having to pay a second time because this should have been done during the first service callWhen I got back to my office I phoned and left him a message that I was now in the officeHe phoned me back and he went on how much money he has paid to Lee Castle Plumbing LtdI told him to disregard this second invoice it would be cancelledHowever the next day the person in my office felt he should at least pay for the material that was used because he would have initially been charged if the men would have used the material on the first service call and she proceeded to process the charge of $***
***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/02/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
"Professional judgement" is seriously lacking if the workers thought that glue would be enough of a sealantTwo other plumbing companies that I contacted that day said that it is the 'bare minimum standard practice' to put a concrete sealant on those pipesFurthermore, *** notably neglected to mention that in the second invoice I wasn't just charged for the sealant, but labour as well, all for a job that should have been done right the first timeFinally, *** also neglected to address abruptly ending a phone conversation in the middle of a client's sentence
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/02/09) */
***
February 8,
***
On January 25, we received a service call from *** with *** they were at *** residence
at *** pumping out his septic tank due to the fact his septic pump was not working and also said the pipe between the house and septic tank was leaking and would require a length of pipe being replaced
For safety reason we must send men to work on a septic tank so we dispatched men to ***Upon arrival they diagnosed the septic pump was not workingThe sewage pipe going from the house to the solids tank they were advised was cracked and leakingThe men changed the septic pump and tested then proceeded to drain the ground water from the trench with a sump pump this taking approximately minutes to lower the water table to be able to replace the pipeThen the length of pipe was replacedThis pipe goes thru the side of the septic tank and on the tank there is a grommet/seal normally this doesn't require any extra sealantThe grommet/seal looked to be in good as new shape and also felt good and sealed when they proceeded to push the new section of pipe thru this grommet/seal so they used their professional judgement and only applied glue to the joints and did not apply any other sealant to the tank end with the grommet/seal, and advised the homeowner he could fill in the trenchHowever after the men left the trench filled with ground water again(Do to the fact the property/landscaping pushes all the ground water towards the house) and apparently leaked around the grommet/seal
*** came to my office and requested we return and apply sealantWe returned the next morning and once again due to the water in the trench had to pump out the water in order to apply hydraulic cement to the grommet/seal area
*** phoned the office after the invoice was emailed to him for returning and having to drain the trench for a second time and applying the hydraulic cement and voiced he was not happy being charged a second time whereas this should have been done in the first place*** in my office advised him she could reduce the cost of the service call by hours Labour =$*** plus taxAt the time he agreedThen he phoned back and left a message how no he didn't agree with having to pay a second time because this should have been done during the first service callWhen I got back to my office I phoned and left him a message that I was now in the officeHe phoned me back and he went on how much money he has paid to Lee Castle Plumbing LtdI told him to disregard this second invoice it would be cancelledHowever the next day the person in my office felt he should at least pay for the material that was used because he would have initially been charged if the men would have used the material on the first service call and she proceeded to process the charge of $***
***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/02/10) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
"Professional judgement" is seriously lacking if the workers thought that glue would be enough of a sealantTwo other plumbing companies that I contacted that day said that it is the 'bare minimum standard practice' to put a concrete sealant on those pipesFurthermore, *** notably neglected to mention that in the second invoice I wasn't just charged for the sealant, but labour as well, all for a job that should have been done right the first timeFinally, *** also neglected to address abruptly ending a phone conversation in the middle of a client's sentence