Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2017/08/11) */
On July 24th Mr*** requested service at 7:am and spoke to our CSR JoleneHe had many questions for her, one of which was the length of cable within our machinesHe also asked for and was given pricingOur CSR attempted to answer
his questions to the best of her ability, explaining the different cleaning methods we had availableShe was also quite clear and explained the technician would evaluate the property and provide firm pricing before beginning as Mr*** agreed to an appointment between and noonOur technician arrived at 10:a.mand met Mr***, evaluating the situationThey discussed the services and a proposal was submitted and agreed uponOur technician then presented the contract to Mr*** asking for his initials next to the estimate, both signature to begin and agreement to the terms of the contract
Our technician performed the task as describedMr*** had, and took the opportunity to discuss the process and equipment capability with our technician before the work beganHe had the opportunity to decline servicesOur technician even provided additional services at no charge, measuring the distance to the blockageHe audited the property for any additional accesses available to reach the sanitary sewer blockage, finding noneHe then informed Mr*** of the discounted cost to continue the attempt to relieve the line using a high pressure systemMr*** declined
The construction code and city ordinance specify an access to the sanitary system exists to cover every feet of the lateralMr***'s property originally was serviced by a septic system in the rear and was converted in This required elimination of the septic system and the sanitary line to be routed around the structure to the municipal line in frontThe constructed length is over feetAlthough an additional access may be available, it is hidden, and could not be located at the time of serviceIf the blockage had been reached and cleared, the video inspection equipment would have located the access for future serviceWe do not extend the length of our cables because the increased torque exerted on the cable increases the risk of failure
Mr*** waged a complaint to our home officeWe immediately contacted and reached out to himWe offered to provide the high pressure service needed to reach his problem crediting percent of the previous service towards the flat rate costHe refused the offerHis complaint is focused towards our CSRHer job is to gather the customer's information, schedule the appointment, and dispatch the appropriate technicianThe technician is the professional to evaluate and discuss the services on siteAgain, Mr*** discussed the situation and knew what he was agreeing to before he authorized, or in his opinion, allowed our technician to waste his timeWe made a good faith effort to satisfy Mr***, and even provided additional services during the time of service, which provided valuable information
We will not consider any refund or additional discounts
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2016/03/01) */
February 26, 2016
Northern Indiana Revdex.com
4011 Parnell Ave
Fort Wayne, IN XXXXX
Complaint#: XXXXXXXX
Mr. [redacted] called our office on February 2, 2016 at 11:17 a.m. requesting service for a broken main service water...
valve. Our customer service representative scheduled the appointment between 2 and 4 p.m. Multiple calls were received by Mr. [redacted] over the next hour providing information and questions. The technician was made aware Mr. [redacted] would not be on site and had made arrangements for someone to greet him. He arrived on site at 3:32 p.m., identified and introduced himself. The city had responded to a request to terminate service at the curb valve in order to remove a broken gate valve before the meter. The gate of the existing service valve had wedged in a closed state, the stem failed from age, leaving the valve off and inoperable.
Our technician began the task of replacing the valve by drilling a small hole through the primary side to verify the city’s valve was completely off. If the city’s valve was not off the water could be managed until they could facilitate repairs on the outside service valve. In this case the pressure was relieved and no flow was observed. The technician proceeded to remove the compromised valve, clean and prep the pipe, and install a new service ball valve on the line. He rejoined the water meter.
The technician then turned his attention to the defective wall hydrant, which began the reason for our service visit. Mr. [redacted] had attempted to repair the hydrant himself. During his attempt he believed the fixture screwed off, soon learning it was hard plumbed. His removal of the drywall was for his purposes prior to our arrival, not as a convenience to us. The technician removed the existing hydrant and found it to be of a 10†frost proof length not the typical 12â€. The space was too restrictive to install the 12†hydrant we stock on our truck. He informed the individual attending the property that he would be leaving to get the appropriate part to make the repair and that the city would be contacted. A call was placed to the water department dispatch at 4:37 p.m. requesting the service restoration as he was leaving the property. He went to the nearest supply source, Menards, and purchased a 10†Woodford model 17 wall hydrant, identical to the existing unit. His round trip time amounted to approximately 30 minutes.
Upon his return he completed the task of installing the new hydrant in the existing location. While he was finishing Mrs. [redacted] arrived around 5:50 p.m. He cleaned the area and stowed his tools and equipment. The city had not shown up by the time he was finished at 6:00 p.m. At this point the technician was engaged to wait on the city crew to arrive and restore service so he could inspect his work for any leakage. He patiently waited in his vehicle occupying his time by completing the invoice and the use of his smart phone. The city showed up at 6:57 p.m. and water was restored shortly afterwards. The technician did not observe any leaks, presented a copy of the invoice to Mrs. [redacted], never meeting Mr. [redacted]. He left the property at 7:09 p.m., time stamped by a call placed as he was leaving to meet an individual for diner.
Mr. [redacted] contacted our office the following morning lodging a complaint about the charges, referring to the labor amount, and the technician sitting in his van doing nothing. A call was placed to the technician and quick review indicated he had been charged 2.5 hours, only the amount of time spent facilitating repairs. The technician reported he did not access charges for the time he was engaged to wait on the city. Mr. [redacted] received a return call from the CSR explaining the amount. Mr. [redacted] verbally was not satisfied with the explanation and demanded to speak with a manager. I was made aware of the situation but was in route to Chicago to board a flight leaving the country. Mr. [redacted] was made aware of this fact and informed I would review his complaint upon my return; his irritation was documented on a memo by our CSR. During the conversation he requested a copy of the invoice by emailed to him. Our CSR did not refuse to email him the invoice as he alleges. They did not have the technicians invoice to transcribe from, which was the same document already in his possession.
Mr. [redacted] noticed a leak had presented itself the following day, isolated it, and scheduled for a follow up. This was an opportunity for the same technician to explain the service visit to Mr. [redacted]. The technician reported the leak was on the back side of a coupling he installed during the repair. The technician disassembled the manifold and corrected the leak under warranty. After completion Mr. [redacted] confronted the technician about the charges. Not satisfied with the response the technician reported he was visibly upset. The technician became uncomfortable with his aggressive manner and referred Mr. [redacted] to voice his grievance with the management.
Mr. [redacted]’s frustration is misplaced. While he certainly has a right of explanation of the charges it was his actions prior to our arrival which compounded the repairs needed. Also, an isolation valve serviced the wall hydrant. When Mr. [redacted] realized that the valve existed he stated his disappointment he even needed assistance. If Mr. [redacted] felt it necessary to micro manage the appointment he should have arraigned to be present. Our technician was engaged for 3.5 hours related to the service call. He only billed for the 2.5 hours required to facilitate the repairs. Waiting for the city to respond to the request was both outside ours and Mr. [redacted]’s control. However, the technician is compelled to wait until service is restored to observe the primary side of the service valve under pressure.
Mr. [redacted] has not accepted the explanation why the retrieval of the fixture is chargeable time. There is not sufficient room in our vehicles to inventory every item encountered on a daily basis. The stock is based on the common items historically purchased. The technician was fully aware of the potential items needed and the stock within his truck. Unfortunately, until the technician has taken a physical inventory of the task will he know if he has the necessary components on hand needed to facilitate the repairs. Mr. [redacted] is fortunate the technician assigned to him did not bill for the time engaged to wait on the city or an after-hour charge which took effect after 6 p.m. I would have supported these charges as explained previously. The technicians are a commissioned employee working under strict guidelines. If a technician underestimates or undercharges he is under the same scrutiny as overcharging. After careful review I feel Mr. [redacted] was undercharged and his complaint is unwarranted.
A complaint does not generate a discount. Mr. [redacted] has been is requesting a refund based on his perception the time dedicated to acquire the proper length wall hydrant required in his application was unwarranted. I will provide a refund for the half hour of time spent, with prejudice. This resolve is the only consideration which will be made in this matter. A credit will be posted to the card he used for the service.
Respectfully submitted,
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2017/08/11) */
On July 24th Mr*** requested service at 7:am and spoke to our CSR JoleneHe had many questions for her, one of which was the length of cable within our machinesHe also asked for and was given pricingOur CSR attempted to answer
his questions to the best of her ability, explaining the different cleaning methods we had availableShe was also quite clear and explained the technician would evaluate the property and provide firm pricing before beginning as Mr*** agreed to an appointment between and noonOur technician arrived at 10:a.mand met Mr***, evaluating the situationThey discussed the services and a proposal was submitted and agreed uponOur technician then presented the contract to Mr*** asking for his initials next to the estimate, both signature to begin and agreement to the terms of the contract
Our technician performed the task as describedMr*** had, and took the opportunity to discuss the process and equipment capability with our technician before the work beganHe had the opportunity to decline servicesOur technician even provided additional services at no charge, measuring the distance to the blockageHe audited the property for any additional accesses available to reach the sanitary sewer blockage, finding noneHe then informed Mr*** of the discounted cost to continue the attempt to relieve the line using a high pressure systemMr*** declined
The construction code and city ordinance specify an access to the sanitary system exists to cover every feet of the lateralMr***'s property originally was serviced by a septic system in the rear and was converted in This required elimination of the septic system and the sanitary line to be routed around the structure to the municipal line in frontThe constructed length is over feetAlthough an additional access may be available, it is hidden, and could not be located at the time of serviceIf the blockage had been reached and cleared, the video inspection equipment would have located the access for future serviceWe do not extend the length of our cables because the increased torque exerted on the cable increases the risk of failure
Mr*** waged a complaint to our home officeWe immediately contacted and reached out to himWe offered to provide the high pressure service needed to reach his problem crediting percent of the previous service towards the flat rate costHe refused the offerHis complaint is focused towards our CSRHer job is to gather the customer's information, schedule the appointment, and dispatch the appropriate technicianThe technician is the professional to evaluate and discuss the services on siteAgain, Mr*** discussed the situation and knew what he was agreeing to before he authorized, or in his opinion, allowed our technician to waste his timeWe made a good faith effort to satisfy Mr***, and even provided additional services during the time of service, which provided valuable information
We will not consider any refund or additional discounts
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2016/03/01) */
February 26, 2016
Northern Indiana Revdex.com
4011 Parnell Ave
Fort Wayne, IN XXXXX
Complaint#: XXXXXXXX
Mr. [redacted] called our office on February 2, 2016 at 11:17 a.m. requesting service for a broken main service water...
valve. Our customer service representative scheduled the appointment between 2 and 4 p.m. Multiple calls were received by Mr. [redacted] over the next hour providing information and questions. The technician was made aware Mr. [redacted] would not be on site and had made arrangements for someone to greet him. He arrived on site at 3:32 p.m., identified and introduced himself. The city had responded to a request to terminate service at the curb valve in order to remove a broken gate valve before the meter. The gate of the existing service valve had wedged in a closed state, the stem failed from age, leaving the valve off and inoperable.
Our technician began the task of replacing the valve by drilling a small hole through the primary side to verify the city’s valve was completely off. If the city’s valve was not off the water could be managed until they could facilitate repairs on the outside service valve. In this case the pressure was relieved and no flow was observed. The technician proceeded to remove the compromised valve, clean and prep the pipe, and install a new service ball valve on the line. He rejoined the water meter.
The technician then turned his attention to the defective wall hydrant, which began the reason for our service visit. Mr. [redacted] had attempted to repair the hydrant himself. During his attempt he believed the fixture screwed off, soon learning it was hard plumbed. His removal of the drywall was for his purposes prior to our arrival, not as a convenience to us. The technician removed the existing hydrant and found it to be of a 10†frost proof length not the typical 12â€. The space was too restrictive to install the 12†hydrant we stock on our truck. He informed the individual attending the property that he would be leaving to get the appropriate part to make the repair and that the city would be contacted. A call was placed to the water department dispatch at 4:37 p.m. requesting the service restoration as he was leaving the property. He went to the nearest supply source, Menards, and purchased a 10†Woodford model 17 wall hydrant, identical to the existing unit. His round trip time amounted to approximately 30 minutes.
Upon his return he completed the task of installing the new hydrant in the existing location. While he was finishing Mrs. [redacted] arrived around 5:50 p.m. He cleaned the area and stowed his tools and equipment. The city had not shown up by the time he was finished at 6:00 p.m. At this point the technician was engaged to wait on the city crew to arrive and restore service so he could inspect his work for any leakage. He patiently waited in his vehicle occupying his time by completing the invoice and the use of his smart phone. The city showed up at 6:57 p.m. and water was restored shortly afterwards. The technician did not observe any leaks, presented a copy of the invoice to Mrs. [redacted], never meeting Mr. [redacted]. He left the property at 7:09 p.m., time stamped by a call placed as he was leaving to meet an individual for diner.
Mr. [redacted] contacted our office the following morning lodging a complaint about the charges, referring to the labor amount, and the technician sitting in his van doing nothing. A call was placed to the technician and quick review indicated he had been charged 2.5 hours, only the amount of time spent facilitating repairs. The technician reported he did not access charges for the time he was engaged to wait on the city. Mr. [redacted] received a return call from the CSR explaining the amount. Mr. [redacted] verbally was not satisfied with the explanation and demanded to speak with a manager. I was made aware of the situation but was in route to Chicago to board a flight leaving the country. Mr. [redacted] was made aware of this fact and informed I would review his complaint upon my return; his irritation was documented on a memo by our CSR. During the conversation he requested a copy of the invoice by emailed to him. Our CSR did not refuse to email him the invoice as he alleges. They did not have the technicians invoice to transcribe from, which was the same document already in his possession.
Mr. [redacted] noticed a leak had presented itself the following day, isolated it, and scheduled for a follow up. This was an opportunity for the same technician to explain the service visit to Mr. [redacted]. The technician reported the leak was on the back side of a coupling he installed during the repair. The technician disassembled the manifold and corrected the leak under warranty. After completion Mr. [redacted] confronted the technician about the charges. Not satisfied with the response the technician reported he was visibly upset. The technician became uncomfortable with his aggressive manner and referred Mr. [redacted] to voice his grievance with the management.
Mr. [redacted]’s frustration is misplaced. While he certainly has a right of explanation of the charges it was his actions prior to our arrival which compounded the repairs needed. Also, an isolation valve serviced the wall hydrant. When Mr. [redacted] realized that the valve existed he stated his disappointment he even needed assistance. If Mr. [redacted] felt it necessary to micro manage the appointment he should have arraigned to be present. Our technician was engaged for 3.5 hours related to the service call. He only billed for the 2.5 hours required to facilitate the repairs. Waiting for the city to respond to the request was both outside ours and Mr. [redacted]’s control. However, the technician is compelled to wait until service is restored to observe the primary side of the service valve under pressure.
Mr. [redacted] has not accepted the explanation why the retrieval of the fixture is chargeable time. There is not sufficient room in our vehicles to inventory every item encountered on a daily basis. The stock is based on the common items historically purchased. The technician was fully aware of the potential items needed and the stock within his truck. Unfortunately, until the technician has taken a physical inventory of the task will he know if he has the necessary components on hand needed to facilitate the repairs. Mr. [redacted] is fortunate the technician assigned to him did not bill for the time engaged to wait on the city or an after-hour charge which took effect after 6 p.m. I would have supported these charges as explained previously. The technicians are a commissioned employee working under strict guidelines. If a technician underestimates or undercharges he is under the same scrutiny as overcharging. After careful review I feel Mr. [redacted] was undercharged and his complaint is unwarranted.
A complaint does not generate a discount. Mr. [redacted] has been is requesting a refund based on his perception the time dedicated to acquire the proper length wall hydrant required in his application was unwarranted. I will provide a refund for the half hour of time spent, with prejudice. This resolve is the only consideration which will be made in this matter. A credit will be posted to the card he used for the service.
Respectfully submitted,
[redacted]
General Manager