Master Plumbing & Drain Cleaning

Contrary to what [redacted] suggests, the phone call with him does not constitute a “verbal agreement” for services – this call only placed a service call for a toilet repair at the [redacted] location and also gave, [redacted] an approximation, otherwise called an “estimate” which in no way is a guarantee of price nor, is it an agreement of any sort to complete the job at a certain price The authorization to do the job was given at the job site, by the person located at the condominium – if authorization was needed to be obtained from the landlord, the tenant should have contacted their landlord not the service tech, as there was no way for the serviceman to know that the tenant was not authorized to make such decisions and make payment [redacted] ***’ problem seems to be more focused on the fact that he needed to pay his tenant back for the services, and not that the services were not performed correctly From the company’s perspective, the job was performed, and the amount being charged was not disputed at the time of service and payment was taken at the customer’s home There has been no complaint about the quality of the work performed or that the repairs were not completed, and as stated above, the labor and parts for the repair totaled $185, which is what the invoice states and payment was made willingly by the customer at the location This amount would not have changed regardless of whether the [redacted] or the customer at the location was paying for the job The authorization required to complete the job came from the person who was on the premises and that person paid the bill The complaint is not with Master Plumbing’s service practices or the repair performed, but instead lies with the failing of the communications between [redacted] and his tenant at the [redacted] condominium Unfortunately, although [redacted] believes that a verbal agreement existed between himself and Master Plumbing, no verbal agreement existed – only an estimate given over the phone by dispatch and the job scheduled The price for the job remains $inclusive of parts and labor, and the work was performed, invoice was provided and paid for at the time of service without incident and there has not been a problem with the repair The complainant’s problem is not with the job performed, but instead that he needed to reimburse his tenant for the invoice There would be no reason why $would be refunded to [redacted] when he did not pay Master Plumbing, the tenant paid There was nothing that constitutes a breach of agreement, verbal or written, between [redacted] and Master Plumbing as [redacted] was only given an estimate for services – the actual work was outlined in the invoice, completed and paid for without incident by the customer on the premises

Please accept this as my response to complaint ID number [redacted] – with respect to the complaint filed on 8/24/by customer [redacted] **With respect to the toilet repair performed at [redacted] ***’ tenant’s home, the price given to the landlord on the phone was, as stated at the time given, an estimate in the amount of $145, with the final pricing only known after seeing and completing the job The extra $was required, due to the type of parts required to complete the job as more parts were needed It is called an estimate when given over the phone, as there is no way to know what types of problems will be incurred after actually seeing what is involved and what parts and labor may be needed to complete the job successfullyAs far as the invoice, an invoice was provided to the tenant upon completion of the job, and a copy of the invoice was sent via email to the landlord when he requested same The tenant had a check ready to make payment after the job was completed, and the payment was accepted as standard practice is for payment to be rendered at the time of service It is not the company’s responsibility to effectuate communications between the tenant and landlord regarding how service will be paid Our service technician receives the call, performs the job and collects payment at the time of service We do not bill post service, payment is taken upon completion of the job In this instance, the tenant freely provided the check upon completion of services, and if there is a dispute regarding repayment of these charges to the tenant, this needs to be dealt with between the tenant and landlordWe apologize for the customer's dissatisfaction and of course appreciate the business, but we stand by our process and how it was executed on this service call

Please accept this as my response to complaint ID number [redacted] – with respect to the complaint filed on 8/3/by customer [redacted] ***, [redacted] , CT ***We apologize to Ms [redacted] for her unpleasant experience with our service technician, Dave He is a new technician, and although we do try to prepare these techs to the best of our ability to deal with any types of repairs and replacements, it is inevitable that they do encounter problems, and may not be familiar with certain fixtures We have spoken to Dave, and he realizes, that perhaps calling out a more seasoned serviceman to help him complete the job, would probably have been a better solution than to attempt to perform the repair with limited knowledge Although we would have appreciated the opportunity to return to the [redacted] job and complete the job for the customer eliminating the need to call in a second plumber, we do realize that she may have been feeling less than satisfied with the initial dealings with our company To that extent, we would like to make it right with the customer, and we will be refunding $to them by way of check number [redacted] that will be sent to the customer today, Wednesday, September 16, Again, we are sorry for Ms***’s dissatisfaction, and hope that she may give our company a second chance to redeem themselves and give us a call should the need for a plumber arise once again

To whom it may concern: I consider it an honor and privilege to write on behalf of Matt D***, proprietor and manager of Master Plumbing and Drain Cleaning, Stratford, CT 06614, ###-###-####, respectfully I have known MrD [redacted] for several years and I must say that I have always been impressed by his sincerity, integrity and utmost fairness as a genuine human being and professional His genuine concern and compassion for those he serves on a daily basis is most commendable, as he seeks primarily the well being of every customer with the utmost respect for the dignity of every human person It is very evident that MrD [redacted] does not regard his daily work schedule as a routine, but as a service, striving to make a difference in the lives of others His attitude is selfless and his presence is always permeated by a warm family type of assurance and good will He takes his profession very seriously as he possesses a keen intelligence and skills of high precision always permeated by a high work eithic MrD [redacted] truly wants to leave every customer totally happy and satisfied after every service Lastly, with heartfelt compassion for the circumstances of others, he tries his best to accomodate those in needThe community of Stratford and surrounding areas are very fortunate to have a fellow human being as MrD [redacted] who is dedicated to the common goodThank you for your time and kind attention and I am, Respectfully yours, Mario LD [redacted] c/o Nicholas and Maria D [redacted] ###-###-#### March 3,

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I, [redacted] (hereinafter "the Landlord) initially called and hired "The Master Plumbing & Drain Cleaning" (hereinafter "the plumber") to do the jobMy tenant (hereinafter "the tenant") DID NOT hire the plumberAccording to the Landlord's and the plumber's verbal agreement on the phone the plumber was supposed to call the Landlord after the completion of the job for the payment of the agreed amount The plumber was in a verbal agreement with the Landlord who had initially called and hired him, and not with the tenantWhen inside the apartment before proceeding with the job, the plumber DID NOT call the Landlord and DID NOT communicate tothe Landlord the difference between the agreed price and a new asking price which was almost 30% higher than the price agreed BREACH OF AN AGREEMENTThe plumber did not call the landlord and did not communicate to the Landlord a new asking price which was significantly higher than the agreed price to get the approval to start the job.The plumber proceeded with the job without landlord's approval of a new asking priceUpon completion of an unauthorized job the plumber charged the tenant the amount which had not been agreed upon with the landlord who had hired himLater on, the Landlord had to reimburse the tenant for the amount paid to the plumber by the tenantThis is a breach of a verbal contractual agreement which has the same legal power in the State of Connecticut as a written contractual agreement, as well as a violation of a code of a professional conduct The Plumber must make a full refund for the unauthorized job, time spent resolving this matter and moral aggravation Sincerely, [redacted] ***

It is unfortunate that [redacted] has chosen to use the services of the Revdex.com to voice his frustration with a situation he as the general contractor for the [redacted] has created and the claims he has made against Master Plumbing are unsubstantiated Master Plumbing was asked to run plumbing in a renovation job for [redacted] – there was never a completion date for this project and no contract was ever signed as this was an ongoing renovation that required other construction to be done while plumbing was being installed Plumbing work was being performed on an ad hoc basis according to the requests of Steve Eaton Also, Master Plumbing was in constant contact with [redacted] as he is well aware, which is evident in the fact that while on the Hickory job, Master Plumbing was pulled off of this project by MrEaton and asked to perform emergency jobs at two other properties where tenants had contacted Steve Eaton with immediate problems – one such job was [redacted] Stratford the other was Dewey Court in Bridgeport, both jobs were completed same day Master Plumbing was paid $2,total to date for the work completed ($2,figure is incorrect) – payments of $1,were made on two separate occasions via credit card and not by check The first payment was made before the work commenced in the main house to purchase parts and to perform the initial laying of pipe in concrete foundation Another payment was collected from [redacted] to make the runs and set up for proper placement of fixtures according to the blueprints (It took several phone calls and texts to Steve Eaton to obtain the blueprints for this project, which contributed to days where work could not be performed) So the payment received by Master Plumbing in the amount of $2,is for work that has been completed on [redacted] Master Plumbing has several photos of the completed work at the [redacted] as proof of the work done there, which can be provided if requested After initial work agreed upon was completed and paid, Steve Eaton continually requested that plumbing be run to an “add-on” porch unit, and Matt DiToro from Master Plumbing informed MrEaton that he would not run plumbing to this porch, as the construction of the foundation was not legal MrEaton made an attempt to stabilize the structure by placing mason blocks underneath the foundation, but was again informed by Master Plumbing this did not make the porch unit “plumbing ready” and due to the fact that the porch was not completed to code, Master Plumbing would not be running plumbing to this area under their license Matt DiToro of Master Plumbing visited the Westport Town Hall Building Department to discuss with the inspector what the plans filed with the Town indicated as far as the porch unit and pand was informed by the Town of Westport Building Department that they were trying to get in contact with MrEaton as well because they had issues with the renovations being performed on this jobsite This can be confirmed by the Town of Westport Town Hall Therefore, Master Plumbing would not be able to have the plumbing at the location inspected properly, so Master Plumbing ceased work at the location It appears that MrEaton is only upset because the Town of Westport halted all work being done at the location until such time as he could remedy the problems with the Building Department this in no way is a reflection on work done at the location by Master Plumbing, but instead faults of the general contractor Fit-Homes/Steve Eaton Currently, Master Plumbing has no contract with Fit-Homes or Steve Eaton to complete the project, the work that could be legally completed according to code was done and paid for and Master Plumbing’s obligations at the Hickory Street project have been fulfilled Master Plumbing will not be refunding payments as work was completed as agreed to when requested and this work was done properly

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Even if the plumber calls the agreed on the phone price "an estimate", the final price has never been communicated to me and the work was done at my property without my permission or consent to the final price.The plumber had perfectly well known through our phone conversation that I was the owner and I was picking up the tab, not the tenant.The facts are : Fact I called the plumberFact I agreed on the phone not to an estimate but to an agreed price, because the problem was described to the plumber in great detail and the plumber gave his price "parts and labor $145"Fact Even if the plumber calls the agreed price "an estimate" the plumber never communicated to me (the owner) his final asking price knowing in advance via the phone conversation that I am the one who will be paying the bill. He took advantage of the fact that the tenant didn't know anything about our agreed by the phone price and made the tenant pay the price which I would never have agreed to.I demand a full refund of $that my tenant paid the plumber and had been reimbursed by me, because the work at my apartment was performed without my consent or permission and if the plumber, as he insists, communicated an estimate to me in first place, so logically he should have communicated to me the final price as well to get my permission to start any work at my property.The plumber performed work at my property without my permission and that is a fact, knowing in advance that I am the owner
Sincerely,
Michael Lukas

Please accept this as my response to complaint ID number [redacted] – with respect to the complaint filed on 8/3/by customer [redacted], [redacted], CT [redacted]
"margin-bottom: 10pt;">We apologize to Ms[redacted] for her unpleasant experience with our service technician, Dave. He is a new technician, and although we do try to prepare these techs to the best of our ability to deal with any types of repairs and replacements, it is inevitable that they do encounter problems, and may not be familiar with certain fixtures. We have spoken to Dave, and he realizes, that perhaps calling out a more seasoned serviceman to help him complete the job, would probably have been a better solution than to attempt to perform the repair with limited knowledge. Although we would have appreciated the opportunity to return to the [redacted] job and complete the job for the customer eliminating the need to call in a second plumber, we do realize that she may have been feeling less than satisfied with the initial dealings with our company. To that extent, we would like to make it right with the customer, and we will be refunding $to them by way of check number [redacted] that will be sent to the customer today, Wednesday, September 16, 2015. Again, we are sorry for Ms[redacted]'s dissatisfaction, and hope that she may give our company a second chance to redeem themselves and give us a call should the need for a plumber arise once again

It is unfortunate that [redacted] has chosen to use the services of the Revdex.com to voice his frustration with a situation he as the general contractor for the [redacted] has created and the claims he has made against Master Plumbing are unsubstantiated.    
 
Master...

Plumbing was asked to run plumbing in a renovation job for [redacted] – there was never a completion date for this project and no contract was ever signed as this was an ongoing renovation that required other construction to be done while plumbing was being installed.   Plumbing work was being performed on an ad hoc basis according to the requests of Steve Eaton.   Also, Master Plumbing was in constant contact with [redacted] as he is well aware, which is evident in the fact that while on the Hickory job, Master Plumbing was pulled off of this project by Mr. Eaton and asked to perform emergency jobs at two other properties where tenants had contacted Steve Eaton with immediate problems – one such job was [redacted] Stratford the other was Dewey Court in Bridgeport, both jobs were completed same day.  
 
Master Plumbing was paid $2,000 total to date for the work completed ($2,400 figure is incorrect) – payments of $1,000 were made on two separate occasions via credit card and not by check.   The first payment was made before the work commenced in the main house to purchase parts and to perform the initial laying of pipe in concrete foundation.   Another payment was collected from [redacted] to make the runs and set up for proper placement of fixtures according to the blueprints.   (It took several phone calls and texts to Steve Eaton to obtain the blueprints for this project, which contributed to days where work could not be performed).    So the payment received by Master Plumbing in the amount of $2,000 is for work that has been completed on [redacted]   Master Plumbing has several photos of the completed work at the [redacted] as proof of the work done there, which can be provided if requested.
 
After initial work agreed upon was completed and paid, Steve Eaton continually requested that plumbing be run to an “add-on” porch unit, and Matt DiToro from Master Plumbing informed Mr. Eaton that he would not run plumbing to this porch, as the construction of the foundation was not legal.   Mr. Eaton made an attempt to stabilize the structure by placing mason blocks underneath the foundation, but was again informed by Master Plumbing this did not make the porch unit “plumbing ready” and due to the fact that the porch was not completed to code, Master Plumbing would not be running plumbing to this area under their license.     
 
Matt DiToro of Master Plumbing visited the Westport Town Hall Building Department to discuss with the inspector what the plans filed with the Town indicated as far as the porch unit and pand was informed by the Town of Westport Building Department that they were trying to get in contact with Mr. Eaton as well because they had issues with the renovations being performed on this jobsite.   This can be confirmed by the Town of Westport Town Hall.   Therefore, Master Plumbing would not be able to have the plumbing at the location inspected properly, so Master Plumbing ceased work at the location.  
 
It appears that Mr. Eaton is only upset because the Town of Westport halted all work being done at the location until such time as he could remedy the problems with the Building Department this in no way is a reflection on work done at the location by Master Plumbing, but instead faults of the general contractor Fit-Homes/Steve Eaton.   Currently, Master Plumbing has no contract with Fit-Homes or Steve Eaton to complete the project, the work that could be legally completed according to code was done and paid for and Master Plumbing’s obligations at the Hickory Street project have been fulfilled.   Master Plumbing will not be refunding payments as work was completed as agreed to when requested and this work was done properly.

To whom it may concern:
I consider it an honor and privilege to write on behalf of Matt D[redacted], proprietor and manager of Master Plumbing and Drain Cleaning, Stratford, CT 06614, ###-###-####, respectfully. I have known Mr. D[redacted] for several years and I must say that I have always been impressed by his sincerity, integrity and utmost fairness as a genuine human being and professional. His genuine concern and compassion for those he serves on a daily basis is most commendable, as he seeks primarily the well being of every customer with the utmost respect for the dignity of every human person. It is very evident that Mr. D[redacted] does not regard his daily work schedule as a routine, but as a service, striving to make a difference in the lives of others. His attitude is selfless and his presence is always permeated by a warm family type of assurance and good will. He takes his profession very seriously as he possesses a keen intelligence and skills of high precision always permeated by a high work eithic. Mr. D[redacted] truly wants to leave every customer totally happy and satisfied after every service. Lastly, with heartfelt compassion for the circumstances of others, he tries his best to accomodate those in need. The community of Stratford and surrounding areas are very fortunate to have a fellow human being as Mr. D[redacted] who is dedicated to the common good.
Thank you for your time and kind attention and I am,
Respectfully yours,
Mario L. D[redacted] c/o Nicholas and Maria D[redacted] ###-###-####
March 3, 2015

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I, [redacted] (hereinafter "the Landlord) initially called and hired "The Master Plumbing & Drain Cleaning" (hereinafter "the plumber") to do the job.
My tenant (hereinafter "the tenant")  DID NOT hire the plumber.
According to the Landlord's and the plumber's  verbal agreement on the phone the plumber was supposed to call the Landlord after the completion of the job for the payment of the agreed amount. 
The plumber was in a verbal agreement with the Landlord who had initially called and hired him, and not with the tenant.
When inside the apartment before proceeding
with the job, the plumber DID NOT call the Landlord and DID NOT communicate to
the Landlord the difference between the agreed price and a new asking price which was almost 30% higher than the price agreed.
BREACH OF AN AGREEMENT
The plumber did not call the landlord and did not communicate to the Landlord a new asking price which was significantly higher than the agreed price to get the approval to start the job.
The plumber proceeded with the job without landlord's approval of a new asking price.
Upon completion of an unauthorized job the plumber charged the tenant the amount which had not been agreed upon with the landlord who had hired him.
Later on, the Landlord had to reimburse the tenant for the amount paid to the plumber by the tenant.
This is a breach of a verbal contractual agreement which has the same legal power in the State of Connecticut as a written contractual agreement, as well as a violation of a code of a professional conduct.
The Plumber must make a full refund
for the unauthorized job, time spent resolving this matter and moral aggravation.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Contrary to what [redacted] suggests, the phone call with him does not constitute a “verbal agreement” for services – this call only placed a service call for a toilet repair at the [redacted] location and also gave, [redacted] an approximation, otherwise called an “estimate” which in no way is a guarantee of price nor, is it an agreement of any sort to complete the job at a certain price.  The authorization to do the job was given at the job site, by the person located at the condominium – if authorization was needed to be obtained from the landlord, the tenant should have contacted their landlord not the service tech, as there was no way for the serviceman to know that the tenant was not authorized to make such decisions and make payment.  
[redacted]’ problem seems to be more focused on the fact that he needed to pay his tenant back for the services, and not that the services were not performed correctly.   From the company’s perspective, the job was performed, and the amount being charged was not disputed at the time of service and payment was taken at the customer’s home.   There has been no complaint about the quality of the work performed or that the repairs were not completed, and as stated above, the labor and parts for the repair totaled $185, which is what the invoice states and payment was made willingly by  the customer at the location.   This amount would not have changed regardless of whether the [redacted] or the customer at the location was paying for the job.   The authorization required to complete the job came from the person who was on the premises and that person paid the bill.   The complaint is not with Master Plumbing’s service practices or the repair performed, but instead lies with the failing of the communications between [redacted] and his tenant at the [redacted] condominium. 
Unfortunately, although [redacted] believes that a verbal agreement existed between himself and Master Plumbing, no verbal agreement existed – only an estimate given over the phone by dispatch and the job scheduled.  The price for the job remains $185 inclusive of parts and labor, and the work was performed, invoice was provided and paid for at the time of service without incident and there has not been a problem with the repair.    The complainant’s problem is not with the job performed, but instead that he needed to reimburse his tenant for the invoice.   There would be no reason why $40 would be refunded to [redacted] when he did not pay Master Plumbing, the tenant paid.   There was nothing that constitutes a breach of agreement, verbal or written, between [redacted] and Master Plumbing as [redacted] was only given an estimate for services – the actual work was outlined in the invoice, completed and paid for without incident by the customer on the premises.

Please accept this as my response to complaint ID number [redacted] – with respect to the complaint filed on 8/24/15 by customer [redacted]. With respect to the toilet repair performed at [redacted]’ tenant’s home, the price given to the landlord on the phone was,...

as stated at the time given, an estimate in the amount of $145, with the final pricing only known after seeing and completing the job.   The extra $40 was required, due to the type of parts required to complete the job as more parts were needed.    It is called an estimate when given over the phone, as there is no way to know what types of problems will be incurred after actually seeing what is involved and what parts and labor may be needed to complete the job successfully. As far as the invoice, an invoice was provided to the tenant upon completion of the job, and a copy of the invoice was sent via email to the landlord when he requested same.   The tenant had a check ready to make payment after the job was completed, and the payment was accepted as standard practice is for payment to be rendered at the time of service.   It is not the company’s responsibility to effectuate communications between the tenant and landlord regarding how service will be paid.  Our service technician receives the call, performs the job and collects payment at the time of service.   We do not bill post service, payment is taken upon completion of the job.   In this instance, the tenant freely provided the check upon completion of services, and if there is a dispute regarding repayment of these charges to the tenant, this needs to be dealt with between the tenant and landlord. We apologize for the customer's dissatisfaction and of course appreciate the business, but we stand by our process and how it was executed on this service call.

Please accept this as my response to complaint ID number [redacted] – with respect to the complaint filed on 8/3/15 by customer [redacted], [redacted], CT [redacted]. We apologize to Ms. [redacted] for her unpleasant experience with our service technician, Dave.   He is a new...

technician, and although we do try to prepare these techs to the best of our ability to deal with any types of repairs and replacements, it is inevitable that they do encounter problems, and may not be familiar with certain fixtures.   We have spoken to Dave, and he realizes, that perhaps calling out a more seasoned serviceman to help him complete the job, would probably have been a better solution than to attempt to perform the repair with limited knowledge.   Although we would have appreciated the opportunity to return to the [redacted] job and complete the job for the customer eliminating the need to call in a second plumber, we do realize that she may have been feeling less than satisfied with the initial dealings with our company.   To that extent,  we would like to make it right with the customer, and we will be refunding $100 to them by way of check number [redacted] that will be sent to the customer today, Wednesday, September 16, 2015.   Again, we are sorry for Ms. [redacted]’s dissatisfaction, and hope that she may give our company a second chance to redeem themselves and give us a call should the need for a plumber arise once again.

It is unfortunate that [redacted] has chosen to use the services of the Revdex.com to voice his frustration with a situation he as the general contractor for the [redacted] has created and the...

claims he has made against Master Plumbing are unsubstantiated.    
 
Master Plumbing was asked to run plumbing in a renovation job for [redacted] – there was never a completion date for this project and no contract was ever signed as this was an ongoing renovation that required other construction to be done while plumbing was being installed.   Plumbing work was being performed on an ad hoc basis according to the requests of Steve Eaton.   Also, Master Plumbing was in constant contact with [redacted] as he is well aware, which is evident in the fact that while on the Hickory job, Master Plumbing was pulled off of this project by Mr. Eaton and asked to perform emergency jobs at two other properties where tenants had contacted Steve Eaton with immediate problems – one such job was [redacted] Stratford the other was Dewey Court in Bridgeport, both jobs were completed same day.  
 
Master Plumbing was paid $2,000 total to date for the work completed ($2,400 figure is incorrect) – payments of $1,000 were made on two separate occasions via credit card and not by check.   The first payment was made before the work commenced in the main house to purchase parts and to perform the initial laying of pipe in concrete foundation.   Another payment was collected from [redacted] to make the runs and set up for proper placement of fixtures according to the blueprints.   (It took several phone calls and texts to Steve Eaton to obtain the blueprints for this project, which contributed to days where work could not be performed).    So the payment received by Master Plumbing in the amount of $2,000 is for work that has been completed on [redacted]   Master Plumbing has several photos of the completed work at the [redacted] as proof of the work done there, which can be provided if requested.
 
After initial work agreed upon was completed and paid, Steve Eaton continually requested that plumbing be run to an “add-on” porch unit, and Matt DiToro from Master Plumbing informed Mr. Eaton that he would not run plumbing to this porch, as the construction of the foundation was not legal.   Mr. Eaton made an attempt to stabilize the structure by placing mason blocks underneath the foundation, but was again informed by Master Plumbing this did not make the porch unit “plumbing ready” and due to the fact that the porch was not completed to code, Master Plumbing would not be running plumbing to this area under their license.     
 
Matt DiToro of Master Plumbing visited the Westport Town Hall Building Department to discuss with the inspector what the plans filed with the Town indicated as far as the porch unit and pand was informed by the Town of Westport Building Department that they were trying to get in contact with Mr. Eaton as well because they had issues with the renovations being performed on this jobsite.   This can be confirmed by the Town of Westport Town Hall.   Therefore, Master Plumbing would not be able to have the plumbing at the location inspected properly, so Master Plumbing ceased work at the location.  
 
It appears that Mr. Eaton is only upset because the Town of Westport halted all work being done at the location until such time as he could remedy the problems with the Building Department this in no way is a reflection on work done at the location by Master Plumbing, but instead faults of the general contractor Fit-Homes/Steve Eaton.   Currently, Master Plumbing has no contract with Fit-Homes or Steve Eaton to complete the project, the work that could be legally completed according to code was done and paid for and Master Plumbing’s obligations at the Hickory Street project have been fulfilled.   Master Plumbing will not be refunding payments as work was completed as agreed to when requested and this work was done properly.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I, [redacted] (hereinafter "the Landlord) initially called and hired "The Master Plumbing & Drain Cleaning" (hereinafter "the plumber") to do the jobMy tenant (hereinafter "the tenant") DID NOT hire the plumberAccording to the Landlord's and the plumber's verbal agreement on the phone the plumber was supposed to call the Landlord after the completion of the job for the payment of the agreed amount. The plumber was in a verbal agreement with the Landlord who had initially called and hired him, and not with the tenantWhen inside the apartment before proceeding
with the job, the plumber DID NOT call the Landlord and DID NOT communicate tothe Landlord the difference between the agreed price and a new asking price which was almost 30% higher than the price agreed
BREACH OF AN AGREEMENTThe plumber did not call the landlord and did not communicate to the Landlord a new asking price which was significantly higher than the agreed price to get the approval to start the job.The plumber proceeded with the job without landlord's approval of a new asking priceUpon completion of an unauthorized job the plumber charged the tenant the amount which had not been agreed upon with the landlord who had hired himLater on, the Landlord had to reimburse the tenant for the amount paid to the plumber by the tenantThis is a breach of a verbal contractual agreement which has the same legal power in the State of Connecticut as a written contractual agreement, as well as a violation of a code of a professional conduct
The Plumber must make a full refund
for the unauthorized job, time spent resolving this matter and moral aggravation
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: Master plumbing and drain cleaning sends a gentlemen name Dave. It was the worst experience ever, he takes hours trying to take a handle off for my shower. It's a moen valve. He's telling me he needs to rip the acrylic wall to get in there to fix balance invertors. He has no clue what he is doing. Wasted my time and he broke my handle. Please do not use them. They end up charging me 185 just to come out. I speak to their boss he said he was going to credit me at least half but never saw the check. It's been a month. I brought in another plumber the next day he is in and out in 15 mins. Took him 20 mins to get the handle that was broken. Cold and hot water came out once he put in the new mixer.Desired Settlement: This business needs to refund at least half. Take Dave for more training!

Business

Response:

Please accept this as my response to complaint ID number [redacted] – with respect to the complaint filed on 8/3/15 by customer [redacted], CT [redacted]. We apologize to Ms. [redacted] for her unpleasant experience with our service technician, Dave. He is a new technician, and although we do try to prepare these techs to the best of our ability to deal with any types of repairs and replacements, it is inevitable that they do encounter problems, and may not be familiar with certain fixtures. We have spoken to Dave, and he realizes, that perhaps calling out a more seasoned serviceman to help him complete the job, would probably have been a better solution than to attempt to perform the repair with limited knowledge. Although we would have appreciated the opportunity to return to the [redacted] job and complete the job for the customer eliminating the need to call in a second plumber, we do realize that she may have been feeling less than satisfied with the initial dealings with our company. To that extent, we would like to make it right with the customer, and we will be refunding $100 to them by way of check number [redacted] that will be sent to the customer today, Wednesday, September 16, 2015. Again, we are sorry for Ms. [redacted]’s dissatisfaction, and hope that she may give our company a second chance to redeem themselves and give us a call should the need for a plumber arise once again.

To whom it may concern:
I consider it an honor and privilege to write on behalf of Matt D[redacted], proprietor and manager of Master Plumbing and Drain Cleaning, Stratford, CT 06614, ###-###-####, respectfully. I have known Mr. D[redacted] for several years and I must say that I have always been impressed by his sincerity, integrity and utmost fairness as a genuine human being and professional. His genuine concern and compassion for those he serves on a daily basis is most commendable, as he seeks primarily the well being of every customer with the utmost respect for the dignity of every human person. It is very evident that Mr. D[redacted] does not regard his daily work schedule as a routine, but as a service, striving to make a difference in the lives of others. His attitude is selfless and his presence is always permeated by a warm family type of assurance and good will. He takes his profession very seriously as he possesses a keen intelligence and skills of high precision always permeated by a high work eithic. Mr. D[redacted] truly wants to leave every customer totally happy and satisfied after every service. Lastly, with heartfelt compassion for the circumstances of others, he tries his best to accomodate those in need. The community of Stratford and surrounding areas are very fortunate to have a fellow human being as Mr. D[redacted] who is dedicated to the common good.
Thank you for your time and kind attention and I am,
Respectfully yours,
Mario L. D[redacted] c/o Nicholas and Maria D[redacted] ###-###-####
March 3, 2015

Review: The Plumber behaved very dishonestly and unprofessionally. When we spoke on the phone,, Matthew D[redacted] (the plumber) gave me an estimate of $145 labor and parts for fixing my tenants toilet. For payment he was supposed to call me for my credit card details, this is how we agreed. Without telling me, behind my back, he charged my tenant $185, whom I had to reimburse later on. I couldn't get an invoice from him for about two weeks. This is a rip off and a dishonest and uprofessional behaviour.Desired Settlement: I demand that he send me a check for the overcharged amount of $40

Business

Response:

Please accept this as my response to complaint ID number [redacted] – with respect to the complaint filed on 8/24/15 by customer [redacted]. With respect to the toilet repair performed at [redacted]’ tenant’s home, the price given to the landlord on the phone was, as stated at the time given, an estimate in the amount of $145, with the final pricing only known after seeing and completing the job. The extra $40 was required, due to the type of parts required to complete the job as more parts were needed. It is called an estimate when given over the phone, as there is no way to know what types of problems will be incurred after actually seeing what is involved and what parts and labor may be needed to complete the job successfully. As far as the invoice, an invoice was provided to the tenant upon completion of the job, and a copy of the invoice was sent via email to the landlord when he requested same. The tenant had a check ready to make payment after the job was completed, and the payment was accepted as standard practice is for payment to be rendered at the time of service. It is not the company’s responsibility to effectuate communications between the tenant and landlord regarding how service will be paid. Our service technician receives the call, performs the job and collects payment at the time of service. We do not bill post service, payment is taken upon completion of the job. In this instance, the tenant freely provided the check upon completion of services, and if there is a dispute regarding repayment of these charges to the tenant, this needs to be dealt with between the tenant and landlord. We apologize for the customer's dissatisfaction and of course appreciate the business, but we stand by our process and how it was executed on this service call.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: