We asked our plumber what he remembered from the January service visit. He stated that the tenant was not home when he arrived and our office contacted the homeowner who came over and met us which has been confirmed by our dispatcher. The homeowner was present and watched as we
inspected the drain line with the camera. Perhaps the homeowner has our company and service call confused with another company? We were not notified of any continued problems with the drain after the camera inspection. Your letter of complaint is our first notice of any additional problemsPlease be aware that camera inspections are not percent accurate. The line can only be inspected to the extent of was is visible. It is possible grease and debris were obstructing the camera view. We sympathize with the homeowner regarding his drain problem, but we cannot accept responsibility
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
At NO point was I allowed to view any portion of the camera. The plumber BEFORE and the plumber AFTER McNeely did their work BOTH informed me that there was mud in the line...and neither of them found any issues with grease in the line. If the camera was actually used, then they would have seen mud. Mud doesn't just magically vanish. The drain line had a very large break in it and was filling with dirt and mud. This would have been VERY visible if an actual camera had been used. They neither cleaned the line properly nor used the camera properly and this resulted in property damage and loss of income. McNeely's failure to accept responsibility will force me to escalate this claim to the Indiana Attorney General, and even a claim in small claims court. This is very easy to see that McNeely failed to do their job properly...as is verified by two other plumbing companies.
Regards,
[redacted]
We asked our plumber what he remembered from the January service visit. He stated that the tenant was not home when he arrived and our office contacted the homeowner who came over and met us which has been confirmed by our dispatcher. The homeowner was present and watched as we
inspected the drain line with the camera. Perhaps the homeowner has our company and service call confused with another company? We were not notified of any continued problems with the drain after the camera inspection. Your letter of complaint is our first notice of any additional problemsPlease be aware that camera inspections are not percent accurate. The line can only be inspected to the extent of was is visible. It is possible grease and debris were obstructing the camera view. We sympathize with the homeowner regarding his drain problem, but we cannot accept responsibility
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
At NO point was I allowed to view any portion of the camera. The plumber BEFORE and the plumber AFTER McNeely did their work BOTH informed me that there was mud in the line...and neither of them found any issues with grease in the line. If the camera was actually used, then they would have seen mud. Mud doesn't just magically vanish. The drain line had a very large break in it and was filling with dirt and mud. This would have been VERY visible if an actual camera had been used. They neither cleaned the line properly nor used the camera properly and this resulted in property damage and loss of income. McNeely's failure to accept responsibility will force me to escalate this claim to the Indiana Attorney General, and even a claim in small claims court. This is very easy to see that McNeely failed to do their job properly...as is verified by two other plumbing companies.
Regards,
[redacted]