Poole's Septic Systems LLC

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint.A septic and well inspection was completed on June 2, The information that was provided to Pooles Septic System, LLC about the home was from [redacted] and home inspectorOn the day of inspection of the site, the soil treatment area was very wet and was failing before the inspection beganWhile doing the inspection, I found that the septic tank is too small for a bedroom home and the soil treatment area was failing, effluent was coming to surface before and during the inspectionThe home inspector also seen the system failing before the inspection, during the inspection, and the day after the inspectionThe home inspector noted his findings in his inspection notes and showed the [redacted] s the day after our inspections, during his walk throughThe [redacted] s witnessed the soil treatment area failingNo effluent should come to surface, DHSS finds this is unacceptable.*Please note, there was a change in the procedures and practices on inspections v/s evaluations from the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) on and after January 01, So before January 1, this septic system was to be ‘inspected’ but after January 1, it would have been an evaluationHowever, the amount of water ran for the hydraulic test had no baring on the outcome of the results and findingsThe soil treatment area was failing before the hydraulic test.Per a request from the buyers agent by email, on 06/04/I sent an estimate on what a replacement septic system would costThis estimate would be used in negotiating the price of the home(the property is under acres and would be subject to the permitting process through the Health Department, there is effluent coming to surface (which is unacceptable), this system was failing, so therefore, it needed a replacement septic system.) At this time, I still have not met the [redacted] ’sPer email , The [redacted] s hired an engineer, [redacted] , Engineer # [redacted] , we received an email from [redacted] on 08/18/with [redacted] s drawings for a new system and a request for an updated estimate per the engineer drawing [redacted] found and noted on his drawings quote “very wet site, install a curtain drain and allow to dry out at least weeks before installation of drip linesDo not install drip lines on a wet siteAdd a ballast to both of the drip linesDo not install drip lines on a wet site.” [redacted] also notes in his drawings quote ‘very wet site’On 08/04/Mr [redacted] ***, Certified Soil Scientist # ***, project # [redacted] , where he evaluated the soil in areasMr [redacted] found in pit water was backfillingIn pit 3, Mr [redacted] noted “smell of septic water in soil pit”Mr [redacted] notes in his morphology report project # [redacted] , notes his concerns quote “the concern is where all the free water is flowing from”The [redacted] s decided to go with Pooles Septic System, LLC to replace the failing septic systemI met with The [redacted] s, for the first time at their home on [redacted] ***, on 08/29/At this time, I noticed that their fence was missing in the backyardThey both told me, [redacted] , that they removed the dilapidated fence and was replacing with a new fence for their dogs that would allow them more room to runThe Engineer, [redacted] , nor Pooles Septic System requested that the fence be removedAlthough it is noted in the signed invoice this bid does not include electrical upgrades, landscaping, additional water diversions, fencing, gates, etc [redacted] signed a contract and the invoiceAt the time, werequested that ½ be paid up front and the remaining amount to be paid upon completion of the jobPer email from ***, we were informed that they had negotiated a price of this system out of the sellers and that money was set aside in an escrow account with [redacted] and that the bank was sending the money (1/down) to Pooles Septic System (email on file)On 08/10/15, I began the application for the permit process through the Health Department for a replacement septic system [redacted] , [redacted] ***, had concerns regarding purged water and surface waterThere are several emails between the Engineer, [redacted] , [redacted] (Health Department) and Pooles Septic System to mention – ALL on file in regards to the purged water and the failing septic systemThe permitting process normally would take an average of days, however, due to the all the findings, failures, and wet conditions of this septic system, it was taking longer than normalWhile installing the curtain drain that was recommended by both the engineer and the soil scientist, Pooles Septic System discovered a inch perforated pipe that is a relief line from the septic systemRelief lines and discharge pipes are unacceptable, unlawfulAt this point, there are several emails back and forth with the Health Department who recommended maybe moving the whole system to a different site(all noted in emails) There are several professionals, including the engineer, soil scientist, Pooles Septic System, and the Health Department that noted the failures of this septic system and siteThe [redacted] s invited [redacted] ( [redacted] ) and myself, ***, and [redacted] – Pooles Septic System, to the site on 04/19/to complain how long the permitting process was taking and to inform Pooles Septic System that our services would no longer be neededWhile at the site [redacted] showed [redacted] and [redacted] from Pooles Septic System, LLC along with [redacted] from the [redacted] a discharge pipe running downslope from the soil treatment area that had effluent discharging – this is same pipe that was discovered while trying to put in the curtain drainDischarge pipes are unacceptable in the State of MissouriThis system is failing and is breaking the guidelines provided by Missouri Laws Accompanied by the Department of Health and Senior Services RulesOn this day, [redacted] requested the down payment be returned to themAll monies were returned to her via check # [redacted] in the amount of $on April 21, The [redacted] s contacted DHSS with a complaint, DHSS reviewed the complaint and spoke with me, [redacted] , that I should have retrieved more information about the home from the sellerNo action was taken against me, [redacted] , by DHSSThey have submitted documents to Pooles Septic System insurance company twice and both times our insurance had denied them paymentTo sum up Pooles Septic System did NOT require nor request the client – the [redacted] s, to remove a fenceThe tree that was removed due to the recommendations from the engineer for septic tank placementThe tree was drowning and deadWhen the tree was pushed over, effluent filled the hole immediatelyThis area is still failingThe [redacted] s showed the location where to place the dying tree to be burnedThe [redacted] s had a load oftop soil brought in to cover the effluent and wetness of the yardAny repairs to a soil treatment area on property under acres is to go through a permitting process through DHSS.Pooles Septic System has thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours invested on this projectPooles Septic System has gone above and beyond to make things right for the [redacted] sThey have a failing system that will need to be replacedDHSS did not find [redacted] / Pooles Septic System at fault nor asked him to reimburse the [redacted] s any moniesDHSS does not hand down judgementsThe Revdex.com and the insurance company did not find [redacted] / Pooles Septic System at faultAll the above professionals agree with the findings of this site failing

The inspection that I completed on 06/02/is an accurate evaluation / inspection The findings on the day of the evaluation /inspection is the very same as the findings of Mr& Mrs [redacted] s second inspection that was completed on 04/04/ The fact is that the second inspector could not run the full hydraulic test, only gallons was run instead of gallons for a bedroom home due to the soil was saturated with standing water in various locations The second inspection was incomplete and false A full gallons of water should have been ran for an inspection of a home that is occupied and with bedrooms The State of Missouri regulations clearly says that Mr [redacted] should have ran gallons of water for a bedroom home This is a positive result Per the Soil Treatment System inspection report under Mr [redacted] , 2c states that the area is free of leaks around / above system, he had marked yes but per the comments of this inspector, he states that “the soil is saturated with standing water at various locations” Mr [redacted] , the 2nd inspector, marked no hydraulic test not performed, soil treatment area not tested (this is noted under Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Assessment for Real Estate Transactions page) He did run water, but not enough for a hydraulic test due to the soil was full of water Mr [redacted] s inspection is incomplete and inaccurateThis inspection is a failed attempt to say that this is not a failing system I have and I am giving you the same professional people that state that there was and still is septic smell and/or surfacing water and / or saturated soils on this property Even their own inspector, which makes professionals, that state the soil treatment area is saturated with water I have supplied documents and emails that reflect that the [redacted] s septic system is failing, and their own inspector said that the soil treatment area was saturated I have attached the copy of the drawings from the Engineer that reflect the soil treatment area IS FAILING and is VERY wet I have attached emails from the StFrancois County Regulator that referred to the failing systemI have attached the Morphology Report, which it too reflects that the original system is failing I have the documents that are FACTS and PROOF that not only did I, [redacted] , say that this system had water in the soil treatment area and that your very own inspector said you had water standing in the soil treatment area, plus several Missouri State Certified Professionals that I have documents reflecting the septic system on this property is failing Per my letter from the State of Missouri, they DO NOT agree with the [redacted] s and did not comment on the results of the inspection

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/20) */
I completed a septic and well inspection on *** *** *** Y, *** MO on 02/23/Per my inspection, the condition of the day, the ground was snow covered which did not allow for a visual inspectionA new hydraulic test was
recommended when the weather condition was betterInspections on private property are by invitation onlyWhen the inspection was scheduled I recommended it to be postponed until weather conditions were favorableAfter completing the inspection, I contacted the agent and explained to him that a re-inspection is highly recommended due to the snow covered groundOn the phone with the buyer/owner, I explained to her that there was no re-inspection like I recommendedShe wanted a re-inspection months laterIf the pipe was noticeable with no snow on it, how come it took them months to locate it? Inspections are not guarantee or warranty plus an inspection is good for a limited timeframeI have the completed inspection and recommendations in my officePer inspection, I noted that the dispersal system could be 'generally' located, due to the weather conditionIn the dispersal system comments on the OWTS FORMS, 'The weather conditions of the day, the ground was snow covered which did not allow for a visual inspectionNo effluent or dye came to surface on the day of inspectionNo discharge pipe was found on the day of inspectionThe dispersal system was working properly on the day of inspectionA new hydraulic test is recommended when the weather conditions are better'On the same OWTS FORM, I quote: The information contained herein is a complete and accurate assessment of the OWTS on the date of this assessment and does not guarantee the continued functioning of the system
She called me and was very upset and began yelling at me and telling me what I was going to do, how and whenI explained in calm manner that a re-inspection was recommended on the day of inspection due to the weather, not months later after she bought the homeI was not rude, but I did tell her that the home was not re-inspected and she was upset - I guess with herself

The inspection that I completed on 06/02/is an accurate evaluation / inspection. The findings on the day of the evaluation /inspection is the very same as the findings of Mr& Mrs***s second inspection that was completed on 04/04/16. The fact is that the second inspector could not run the full hydraulic test, only gallons was run instead of gallons for a bedroom home due to the soil was saturated with standing water in various locations. The second inspection was incomplete and false. A full gallons of water should have been ran for an inspection of a home that is occupied and with bedrooms. The State of Missouri regulations clearly says that Mr*** should have ran gallons of water for a bedroom home. This is a positive result Per the Soil Treatment System inspection report under Mr***, 2c states that the area is free of leaks around / above system, he had marked yes but per the comments of this inspector, he states that “the soil is saturated with standing water at various locations”. Mr***, the 2nd inspector, marked no hydraulic test not performed, soil treatment area not tested (this is noted under Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Assessment for Real Estate Transactions page). He did run water, but not enough for a hydraulic test due to the soil was full of water Mr***s inspection is incomplete and inaccurateThis inspection is a failed attempt to say that this is not a failing system. I have and I am giving you the same professional people that state that there was and still is septic smell and/or surfacing water and / or saturated soils on this property Even their own inspector, which makes professionals, that state the soil treatment area is saturated with water. I have supplied documents and emails that reflect that the ***s septic system is failing, and their own inspector said that the soil treatment area was saturated. I have attached the copy of the drawings from the Engineer that reflect the soil treatment area IS FAILING and is VERY wet. I have attached emails from the StFrancois County Regulator that referred to the failing systemI have attached the Morphology Report, which it too reflects that the original system is failing. I have the documents that are FACTS and PROOF that not only did I, *** ***, say that this system had water in the soil treatment area and that your very own inspector said you had water standing in the soil treatment area, plus several Missouri State Certified Professionals that I have documents reflecting the septic system on this property is failing. Per my letter from the State of Missouri, they DO NOT agree with the ***s and did not comment on the results of the inspection

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because the information contained in the response from Poole's Septic is inaccurate and false. Per DHSS findings, it is the responsibility of the licensed home inspector to obtain the correct and accurate information regarding property vacancy status, not the home inspector. The test that failed the system should never have been conducted in the first place due to the vacancy status and condition of the property prior to testing. The ONLY reason the insurance company would not pay our claim is because Mr*** does not have errors and omissions coverage, which is where this claim will fall (AS HE COMMITTED AN ERROR). As such, we are now forced to file a lawsuit to recover our damages. Mr*** clearly made an error and rather than apologize and offer to at least TRY to make it right, he points the finger at the customer and tries to justify his actions with a bunch of nonsense. There is no illegal relief line on the property and never was, that is complete nonsense which we have proof of. Our system is not failing and never was, which we also have proof of. There was no surfacing effluent on the test day, which we also have proof of. All of this is a ridiculous attempt to make himself look better, but the facts cannot be disputed. A simple apology and effort to make this right would have alleviated a lot of time and effort for all parties involved.
Sincerely,
*** ***