Right Way Waterproofing

The customer's stance has not changedUnfortunately there is nothing else we can do financially to satisfy his situationOur view has not changed

The customer's water line was buried in a pile of bricksHe stated to the foreman he wasn't sure what was behind the bricksWe took all the precautions we could with a large jackhammer and unfortunately his water line was buried in the bricksIn our contract, in the terms and conditions, it
clearly states "Limitation of Liability: Rightway Waterproofing is not responsible for any pre-existing conditions or damages seen or unseenDamages will be noted on proposalThe agreement only covers work listed on the reverse sideGrass replacement, landscape damage, wall patching, painting, tile or concrete replacement, damage to utilities or any other damage done in connection with the location of the utilitiesRightway shall not be liable for indirect, consequential, special or punitive damages whether known or unforeseenIN no event shall the liability of Rightway Waterproofing to customer exceed the total amount shown on the reverse side hereof." We went above and beyond our obligations and paid almost half of his bill to have not only the damaged area fixed, but also he chose to replace more feet of new copper pipe and fittingsWe contacted the plumber and asked him what amount of his work we were responsible for after we agreed to pay the $to the customer and the plumber stated 40% would be our damagesI think the customer has no grounds for a complaint in this matterHe told us he was going to use social media to bash us if we didn't reimburse him 100% of his plumber's billSo we knew this would be comingUnfortunately, we will not be paying another dime to the customer and I think he should be content with the $we paid him

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
The owner is wrong and should take financial responsibility for the errors caused by his crew I'd like this to be posted publicly so others who are looking for a good company will avoid this one.
Regards,
*** ***

The customer's stance has not changed. Unfortunately there is nothing else we can do financially to satisfy his situation. Our view has not changed.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The owner is falsifying statements to suit his case.  I have never used the word "bash" in any context regarding my response to this business.  I used social media to find good feedback about this business which is why I chose them.  It's unfortunate that the few posts about this owner being unreasonable is actually true.  In addition, the person who cut the line took verbal responsibility for his carelessness as did the foreman.  The owner was not on site.  The tone of his response is indicative of his lack of knowledge and instant need to be defensive when he knows his business did wrong by me as a paying customer.  The facts remain as follows: the area where the water line was located was physically pointed out by me and witnessed  by his workers, his workers did not take care in the work they were doing and made an error in judgement thus cutting the water line in my home, his own employees were whiteness to this including his foreman.  I paid for the fix and was only reimbursed less than 50%.  I expected full reimbursement of the plumber work (I did not ask for costs related to lost work time on my own part or the manual labor I performed to keep the repair costs down).
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: In March 2007 I purchase basement waterproofing service at my residential home from this vendor. The service was performed on the side wall of the basement wall where the problem existed. The service is gauranteed for as long as I own the property and transferable to the next owner. I am getting water in my basement from the base of the wall the venedor worked on. I called the vendor three differnt occasions to remidy my problem. First two time he pointed different reasons for the water sippage and made me pay for additional services which did not solve my problem. Third time I observed the sippage when it was happeing and took pictures of the water sippage from the base of the wall. I shared this pictures with the vendor and as a result he sent a technician to assess the situation. The vendor indicates I need addition service to fix my problem. I am sure the addition service will not solve my problem. All I want is to have him repair the work he did. Now he does not response to my reapeated phone calls, and emails. If he does not want to repair the work he did, I am requesting refund of the service charges, which is $2500.00Desired Settlement: Repair or refund of service charges of $2500.00

Business

Response:

October 3, 2013

Dear Sir or Madam:

In March 2007, the customer purchased 33 linear feet of basement waterproofing system. The customer had a competitors system in*tailed in his basement as well. No issues with our system until customer contacted us on June 6, 2013 to advise there was "water on his floor and wasn't sure what was wrong." He also stated the discharge pipe was leaking. We scheduled service on 5/7/13. The problem was not related to our system and the discharge pipe was not cracked. Customer needed more system. There is no warranty unless it is a full perimeter system. Therefore customer incurred a $160.00 which he was made aware of was possible when he called and is also on our and is also on our contracts. We wrote up a contract for the additional work that was needed. It was 38' linear feet of system. We emailed the contract to customer on 6/12/13 {see enclosed copy of email}. Customer agreed to the footage and the price of the contract was $3,150.00. Customer returned email on 6/13/13 confirming price and gave us authorization to proceed with work. Installation of the work was done on 6/14/13. We ended up doing 20 extra linear footage because our measurements were wrong from 2007. We did not charge the customer any extra

for our mistake. At this point in time,, customer has 3 walls with our waterproofing system installed, and 1 wall with another company system installed. We only warranty our work and that was clearly written on the contract that customer agreed to.

On August 13,2013, customer contacted my office and stated his basement had taken on water and mud was present as well. He kindly sent over photos to help show the problem. The problem was the competitors system and parts of our system were clogged with mud and not functioning properly. The customer did not agree with this conclusion. On September 17, 2013, the owner of the company went to the customer's home and net with customer and his wife. At this time the owner told customer wife that the crawlspace was indeed the issue and water, mud and debris was leaking down the wall into the basement. This ultimately got behind our drain board along the wall, and clogged parts of our system as well as the competitors system. Unfortunately, customer could not stay and did not want to hear and be shown the explanation of our conclusion. The owner explained to the wife the issues that were present in the crawlspace, and quoted her a price to fix it properly and re-do 24 linear feet of the system we had already installed-but is clogged and useless. We then followed up in the days after to customer and he would not take our phone calls. When we finally were able to speak with him (after receiving the Revdex.com complaint) he was very combative and explained he was an Engineer and we have no idea what we're talking about, At this time there Is nothing we can do to remedy the situation as it is another problem that needs fixed in the basement. Our system is clogged with mud from an area with no waterproofing system and therefore voids the warranty. Customer advised he was going to seek legal action and that is where the file stands at this time. As of today, there has been no notice of any legal action taken against our company. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Please see the attached document. The document describes all of my reasons for rejecting the vendor response.

Regards,

The Right Way Waterproofing Co’s. (From here on called RWW) response dated 10/3/2013 submitted to Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC and Eastern PA is incomplete, inaccurate, and non-sequential. Following are the sequences of events that took place related to basement water seepage issue at [redacted]’s (From here on also called the customer) residence.

A. First time water seepage related events:

1. 3/29/2007 - RWW installed waterproofing system on the basement North Wall.

2. 6/05/2013 - Client noticed water puddle on the basement floor near the wall.

3. 6/06/2013 - Client requested RWW service over a phone call.

4. 6/07/2013 - RWW’s technicians assess and diagnose the cause.

B. Second time water seepage related events:

5. 6/10/2013 – Client noticed water on the basement floor. Pictures of this condition sent to **. [redacted] (the owner of the company) over an email.

6. 6/12/2013 – RWW’s technicians access and diagnose the cause.

7. 6/12/2013 – Client received RWW’s new contract to remedy the problem.

8. 6/14/2013 – RWW installed waterproofing system on the remaining two walls (West and South sides of the basement).

C. Third time water seepage related events:

9. 8/13/2013 – Client noticed water on the entire basement floor. Pictures of this condition sent to [redacted] (RWW employee) over an email.

10. 8/26/2013 – RWW’s technicians assess and diagnose the cause.

11. 9/17/2013 – **. [redacted] arrived at the customer’s resident and access the situation.

12. 9/24/2013 – Client received **. [redacted]’s phone call to discuss his findings of the situation survey.

Following describes details of each water seepage situations.

Situation A: Client noticed water puddle on the floor near the North side of the basement wall and notified RWW over a phone

call about this situation. On 6/07/2013 two RWW’s technicians arrived on the site. They tested RWW’s system by pouring water in to the system’s drain pipe using a water hose. What this does is it checks out if the drain pipe is clogged or not. They found drain pipe was not clogged and concluded that it was client’s dehumidifier spilling the water on the floor. RWW’s technicians concluded that it was not the RWW’s system causing the seepage a $160 service fee was charged to the customer and was paid.

Situation B: The client noticed water on 1/4th of the basement floor, which was notified to **. [redacted] over a phone call.

**. [redacted] requested to take pictures of the situation and send the pictures to him, which the client did over an email. On 6/12/2013 two technicians arrived at the customer’s residence to access and diagnose the situation. Again the technician poured water in the system’s drain pipe through the pipe’s opening using a water hose to check if the pipe is clogged. They did not find the pipe clogged. The client also has a competitor waterproofing system on an East side of the basement wall. The technicians also tried to test the competitor system

pipe but could not since it does not have opening for testing purpose. At this point the technicians called **. [redacted] over a cell phone informing him of their findings. Next the technicians asked me to talk to **. [redacted] over the same phone call. **. [redacted] told me that since I do not have remaining two walls with the waterproofing system all the water accumulated at those walls are over loading his current system. He recommended to install a waterproofing system for those walls and quoted me a price for the work over the same phone

call. I stated that this action my not solve my issue since I did not believe that not having the waterproofing system on the remaining walls is the cause for the seepage. As such I wanted to make sure that by having a system at the remaining walls; it is guaranteed that the issue will be resolved. **. [redacted] stated if I get this done he guarantees I will not have this problem again. At this point I agree with him to have the remaining walls with the waterproofing system.

On 6/12/2013 **. [redacted] sent me a new contract indicating statement of work, pricing and warranty of the additional system work. It was a one page document copy which I reviewed and sent my acceptance of the contract via a return email based on this document.

On 6/14/2013 the RWW’s work crew arrived at my residence for installation of waterproofing system for the two walls. The Forman of the crew asked me to sign an Acknowledgement of Contract Terms and Conditions form. This form included conditions of payment and contract terms noted in the contract. I asked the Forman which contract terms I am agreeing to. He stated these are the terms and condition stated in the contract that I received over the email I received from RWW. Since I had reviewed the contract that I received from **. [redacted] and I agreed to the stated terms and conditions noted in that one contract page, I signed the form. Work was completed on 6/14/2013.

Situation C: On 8/13/2013 the client noticed water on the entire basement floor. Night before there was a 6” rainfall over an 8 hours period in the client’s town. At this time some dirt also came in along with the water in the basement. On the same day, over an email, the client informed [redacted] (RWW employee) of the situation and sent pictures of the basement water seepage. The client followed up with a phone call to [redacted] to find out RWW’s plan of action. [redacted] indicated they will send their technicians to access the situation.

At this situation when the customer went to the basement to take pictures, it was still raining. He noticed that the water was guessing out between the center of the North side wall and the system’s mira-drain panel. Also it was noticed that during the time of heavy rainfall water was spilling out from the top of the mira-drain panel. The water did not spill out over the mira-drain panel when the rate of rainfall reduced,

although the water came up to the top of the panel. Picture of spilling over the panel was included in the email to [redacted].

On 8/26/2013 two technicians arrived at the customer residence to access and diagnose the situation. Again they did their rituals - tested the system’s drain pipe by pouring water through the drain pipe test opening using water hose. They could not test the competitor’s system since it did not have test opening. Using the water hose they squirt the water between the wall and the mira-drain panel. I do not know what they were trying to test.

There is a crawl space in the basement above the right side of the North wall. One technician started measuring the crawl space walls’ lengths. Upon completion of these measurements, he called **. [redacted] on his cell phone to discuss their findings. At the end of his conversation he handed the cell phone to me to speak to **. [redacted]. On the phone **. [redacted] told the client on that the reason for the water seepage through the North side wall is due to an evidence of water marks on the crawl space walls. As such the North side wall waterproofing system is getting overloaded (remember in the situation B it was the West and South side walls were overloading the system). In addition he stated since customer basement has over 100 feet of the channels, another sump pump and sump pump pit is required. To have these installed he quoted $5635.00 that includes $950.00 to fix the North side wall system and $500.00 discount.

The section of the wall from where the water seepage occurring is way before the crawl space starts. If the crawl space is an issue than the water seepage should occur right under the crawl space. In the picture the wall seems to have some wetness but did not have a flow of water seeping from the wall which could over load the system.

As such the customer disagrees with **. [redacted]’s conclusion and his recommendations. During the situations A and B the customer agreed with RWW’s recommendation and followed through suggested services and still the situation did not get resolved. Beside it is now known where the system is compromised. Why not to fix that first and then see if addition work is needed. In past RWW’s conclusion has been proven wrong two times, which is why this time around it is not to be agreed upon. As such the customer suggested having a face to face meeting to discuss the matter in details. **. [redacted] indicated he is going on vacation is not available for the next couple of weeks. The

customer stated it is OK and **. [redacted] to call the customer for setting up a face to face meeting. That is where the phone call ended.

Having not heard from RWW for several weeks, the customer called RWW’s office and left a message to set the previously suggested meeting. Following that **. [redacted] called the customer’s house for setting up the meeting. **. [redacted] spoke to the Customer’s wife and agreed upon a meeting date and time of 9/17/2013 between 12:00 to 2:00 PM. She mentioned to **. [redacted] that her husband has to leave the house to go to work at 2:00 PM and as such suggested him to come early. **. [redacted] showed up at 2:05 for the meeting. Since the

customer had to leave for work he did not stayed for the meeting.

On 9/24/2013 the customer received a phone call from **. [redacted] to disclose the results of his findings as a result of his visit to the customer’s residence. Again he indicated same conclusion as he stated during the 8/26/2013 phone conversation with the customer. The customer stated to fix the compromised system first before any other additional new system work. **. [redacted] stated since the North

wall system is clogged due to dirt it will not be covered under the warranty. The customer stated no such contract condition was present in the contract he accepted, and as such RWW must fix the compromised system. At this point the customer was little upset since RWW did not want to honor the contract. **. [redacted] stated he is not willing to deal with the customer since the customer has filed a complain with Revdex.com and he will only deal with the customer’s attorney. The customer requested **. [redacted] to put this in writing, which he refused to do. Since **. [redacted] is only going to work with the customer through his attorney the customer stated that **. [redacted] will hear from one. At this

point the call ended.

RWW’s Response Statements

Rebuttal: Following is rebuttal of statements made by RWW in its response to Revdex.com.

RWW statement: There is no warranty unless it is a full perimeter system

Rebuttal: The customer now has a fullperimeter system as such that should cover the warranty. In addition no such clause stated in the RWW warranty provisions.

RWW statement: We emailed the contract to customer on 6/12/2013 (see enclosed copy of email).

Rebuttal: The email copy provided to Revdex.com is not the one the customer received from RWW. The customer email has only one contract page. In the RWW response to Revdex.com has two contract pages.

RWW statement: The problem was the competitors system and parts of our system were clogged with mud and not functioning

properly.

Rebuttal: The customer did state to RWW that its system is compromised by dirt. The competitor’s system has been checked out

and tested by the provider and did assured that its system is fully functional.

RWW statement: At this time the owner told customer and his wife that the crawlspace was indeed the issue and water, mud and debris

was leaking down the wall into the basement. This ultimately got behind our drain board along the wall, and clogged part of our system, as well as competitor’s system.

Rebuttal: The owner arrived at the customer house at the time when the customer had to leave for work. So the customer was

not there when the owner described his finding to the customer’s wife.

The customer had three different basement waterproofing contractors assess the situation. All of them mentioned that at some point in time a crawlspace system may be required. However the crawlspace is not the cause for the current water seepage.

The customer has noticed dirt coming in with the water seepage; however nothing else has been observed. No idea what kind of debris being mentioned by RWW. In any way, as a part of the construction process RWW has drilled one inch diameter weep holes along the bottom of the entire wall to relive water pressure behind the wall. In that case what do you expect to come through the wall – filtered water?

Ground water always carries dirt and other debris which will come through these holes, especially when it is flowing with a pressure force.

Competitor’s system is nowhere near the North wall. Also the competitor has checked it system and found fully functional.

RWW statement: Unfortunately, customer could not stay and did not want to hear and be shown to explanation of our conclusion.

Rebuttal: As stated before the owner arrived at the time the customer had to go to work. As such the customer could not be

present during the explanation.

RWW statement: The owner explained to the wife the issues that were present in the crawlspace and quoted a price to fix it properly……

Rebuttal: No such price quote is provided in writing. Nothing will be accepted by the customer from RWW verbally. All correspondence must be in writing from now on.

RWW statement: We then followed up in the days after to customer and he would not take our phone calls.

Rebuttal: The customer was out of town during the time RWW was trying to reach the customer.

RWW statement: At this time there is nothing we can do to remedy the situation as it is another problem that needs to be fixed in

the basement. Our system is clogged with mud from an area with no waterproofing system and therefore voids the warranty.

Rebuttal: The customer has three different quotes from three different basement waterproofing contractors. All stated it is not the crawlspace that is the problem and they all warranty to fix the clogged system and warranty the work, with or without a crawl space system.

RWW statement: Customer advised he was going to seek legal action and that is where this file stands at this time:

Rebuttal: The customer has no desire to take any legal action as long as the situation can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion through Revdex.com. If this fails, the customer will take other avenue such as public media support or file a complaint to the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the attorney general of PA. By the way **. [redacted] said he will not work with the customer and only work with the customer’s attorney.

Design and Business Specific Rebuttal

Followings are additional rebuttals:

1. Construction related faults: Basement waterproofing system consists of weep holes in the wall, a channel opening on the floor, a mira-drain panel, and a PVC drain pipe. Ground water flows through the weep holes in to the drain pipe through Mira-drain panel. The weep holes are large enough to bring dirt and debris inside the system. During the construction if the drain pine is not properly sloped

towards the sump pump pit, the water will not flow forcefully due to gravitational force. Instead the water will flow due to volume of water coming in. In this case there will always be water remained in the pipe. Dirt and debris carried in will settle in the pipe. Over a period of time this dirt accumulation will cause blockage of the pipe. If a dirt and silt membrane is used to prevent the dirt getting in to the pipe, than the membrane will be clogged. The point is that the design of the system is such so the system will clog over a period of time.

2. Test and Diagnostic Methodology: To diagnose the water seepage problem, in all cases, RWW checked the drain pipe blockage by pouring water from a water hose in to the pipe cleanout opening. This method will not and could not simulate the actual condition that causes the water seepage. One cannot simulate a 6 inch rain in an eight hour period by using a water hose. Beside water flows funny way – it does not flow the way one thinks. Water takes least resistant path. As such the diagnostic process used by RWW is flowed.

3. Business Practice: Each time the customer complained about water seepage, RWW had concluded something else is wrong rather than questioning its system. It happened to the customer two times where a service fee was charged once and addition service work was required. It seems as if RWW never do anything wrong. I know the company is trying to take advantage of a senior citizen.

4. Sand and Silt Filter: As a part of a basement waterproofing system construction, a sand and silt filter is used to prevent dirt and other debris entering the system. That means RWW should be aware of presence of these foreign substances. In which case how can they not honor the warranty? They know situation like this can be present and as such the provider of the system should build the system so

clogging does not occur.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: The assesment and conclusion of the vendor is in accurate and wrong. Please see the attched document for a further substantiation.

Regards,

The response of Right Way Waterproofing Co. (From here on called RWW) dated 11/5/2013 submitted to Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC and Eastern PA is inaccurate and as such I am rejecting its conclusion.

RWW state that the system is clogged due to dirt. This dirt enters through the weep holes - not from the crawlspace wall area. There is dirt and acid marking present on the wall which is due to porous cinder blocks. This porous condition makes the wall wet which in turn leaves dirt and acid marking on the wall. That does not mean that the crawlspace wall is causing the system blockage. The stated dirt on the floor is not anywhere near the crawl space area. I have observed water seepage when it was happening and I have not seen any large quantity of water coming out of the crawl space or the crawl space wall. What I have seen is water guessing in tough the top of the mira-drain panel, not from the crawlspace wall. RWW representative has not been at the customer property during the water seepage occurrence and as such it is RWW’s speculation.

RWW has stated in its response that system is clogged at the top of mira-drain panel. This is wrong. On the top of the mira-drain panel there is no visible dirt. The system is clogged somewhere between the mira-drain panel and the drain pipe. Due to this the water takes the least resistance path and it flows out from top of the mira-drain panel. In addition the height of the mira-drain should be at least 4” from the floor. It is only around 2” from the floor which makes the weep holes close to the top of the mira-drain panel. This increases the probability of water seeping out from the top rather than passing through the channel.

According to RWW assessment and its claim that crawlspace is culprit for water seepage and as such it cannot warranty its product.

First RWW’s assessment is wrong and is backed up by four different basement waterproofing contractors. Second the latest contract does not state such exclusion. As such the customer insists RWW stand up to its warranty and fixes the system. Otherwise return the customer’s payment for the work.

RWW states the customer is not a waterproofing expert. According to the customer RWW is not any better. RWW made customer buy additional system and assured that this work will solve the current problem based on its diagnosis. RWW got additional $3150.00 and the customer still has the problem. If RWW wants to speculate that the customer is not an expert, in turn the customer claims the same that RWW is not an expert in waterproofing.

RWW states it is outraged due to the customer statement of RWW taking advantage of a senior citizen. Well if RWW feels that way than why don’t it man up and honor its contractual agreement. RWW knowing the customer is an immigrant old person and it thought it can get away with dubious diagnosis and business practices. The customer strongly feels that RWW should feel ashamed rather than outraged.

Review: Rightway representative [redacted] came in October to our house at [redacted] and gave a diagnosis of a water-and-mold problem in our basement, as well as an estimate on a two-phase solution, phase one being tear-down of affected walls and ceilings, installation of a "Mira drain" (sort of like a French drain) and sump pump, followed, after a dry-out period of a few weeks, by phase two, namely the put-back of walls and ceilings (drywall restored to paintable condition.) His diagnosis was permeation of storm water as a function of age of the foundation, with resultant mold buildup. This diagnosis was not entirely accurate; when work was under way, a leaking water pipe was revealed just on the other side of one wall. The water running just inside the wall had been audible, but we, being inexperienced with home repairs, hadn't known what to attribute it to--I believe that [redacted] must have heard the water running in the wall, too, but it suited his purposes not to mention it, in case it turned out all that was necessary was a plumbing job plus mold remediation, instead of the much more expensive installation he was selling us. This was only the beginning of our problems with Rightway, however. On the not-unreasonable assumption that the company was dealing with us in good faith, I signed two contracts, one for each phase of the work, for $6,565.00 and $1,500, respectively. What has happened subsequently is that, not only did Rightway proceed on the basis of a distorted diagnosis, but the company has also in effect refused--on a false technicality--to complete the work. I say "refused," because [redacted] is no longer returning my calls. About a week after phase one of the work was done, a couple of guys (different from the original crew) came to look at our basement to take measurements and see what needed to be done for phase two. They said we'd get a call in a week or so to schedule the work. When the call did come (shortly before Thanksgiving), it was yet a different person (I think his name was [redacted], but I'm not sure) and he suggested Thurs.-Sat., 6-7-8 December (three days being apparently necessary), for phase two. But this included a day when neither my husband nor I could be at home, and neither of us felt comfortable, for various reasons, having a crew in the house when neither of us was there. So I proposed instead 13-14-15 December, because we would then be able to arrange for at least one of us to be home each of those days. [redacted] said he'd check on this and let me know whether those days would work. But I didn't hear from him again until Wednesday 12 December, when he left a message on our phone machine "confirming" that he and the crew would be at our house the following day. By that time, having assumed that the 13-14-15 arrangement was NOT feasible for Rightway, I had made other plans for the 14th that it was too late to change. When I got home from work at around 2 or 3 PM that day, I called [redacted] back and explained. What followed was a series of exchanges in which [redacted] not only became belligerent and ultimately hung up on me, but also misrepresented to me the terms of the contract, which, contrary to his claim of a required 24 hours' notice, says: "Customer is required to contact Rightway Waterproofing by 4:30 PM the previous business day if a reschedule date is necessary." The second or third time I called [redacted] to try to sort things out, he said he was out on a job but would call me later in the evening. He never did. We decided to wait until everyone had had a chance to simmer down, and in the meantime there were the holidays to contend with. On Friday 11 January, I called [redacted]s cell phone number and left a message with a brief query about when he intended to reschedule the basement work for us. He never returned my call, which, at this point, comes as no surprise.Desired Settlement: We believe that we have paid more than we should have for phase one of a basement job for which the original diagnosis was not even accurate. We are no longer interested in working with Rightway Waterproofing, which has established itself as dealing in bad faith, and we would like to negotiate a partial refund for the work that was done. We are not convinced that the elaborate drainage system was necessary. We have been treated by this company and its representatives with outright deceit, as well as a stunning lack of courtesy. We would be satisfied with a refund of $2,532.50, which is equivalent to half the total estimate ($6565.00 + $1500.00 = $8,065/2 = $4,032.50) minus the $1500 we would have paid for phase two.

Business

Response:

{Please see attachment.}

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Review: The contractors who came to our home to provide service on our basement cut through our water line after I explicitly pointed to and showed the service personnel where the line would be. No care was taken to ensure the line would not be cut and instead, the contractor simply cut straight through the line within moments of being told this information. The onsite foreman was aware and also recognized and admitted fault to the error however the owner, who was not on site, refused to take full responsibility.

As a result, I had to call the township to shut down our water. I was then advised by the foreman to contact our own plumber to fix the damage and they would "work with us" on the payment. I had to miss an additional day of work for the repairs that had to be done and I took it upon myself to reduce the cost of the plumbers work by perfoming some of the manual work myself (i.e. refilling the hole) and also requested an add'l discount which the plumber provided. I understand that accidents happen but when they do, the owner of the business should take ownership of the errors caused by his crew. Instead, the owner said he would cover half the cost, then issued a credit of less than half half the plumbers bill and now we are stuck with paying an additional ~400+ on top of what we paid for the basement work (not to mention the lost day of work and additional manual labor)

Note: The work on the basement itself cost 4,829 which I already paid in full. The additional 892.25 required to fix the damage caused by Rightway should be covered entirely by Rightway.Desired Settlement: Payment of the remaining balance on the plumbing service of 492.25

Business

Response:

The customer's water line was buried in a pile of bricks. He stated to the foreman he wasn't sure what was behind the bricks. We took all the precautions we could with a large jackhammer and unfortunately his water line was buried in the bricks. In our contract, in the terms and conditions, it clearly states "Limitation of Liability: Rightway Waterproofing is not responsible for any pre-existing conditions or damages seen or unseen. Damages will be noted on proposal. The agreement only covers work listed on the reverse side. Grass replacement, landscape damage, wall patching, painting, tile or concrete replacement, damage to utilities or any other damage done in connection with the location of the utilities. Rightway shall not be liable for indirect, consequential, special or punitive damages whether known or unforeseen. IN no event shall the liability of Rightway Waterproofing to customer exceed the total amount shown on the reverse side hereof." We went above and beyond our obligations and paid almost half of his bill to have not only the damaged area fixed, but also he chose to replace 18 more feet of new copper pipe and fittings. We contacted the plumber and asked him what amount of his work we were responsible for after we agreed to pay the $400 to the customer and the plumber stated 40% would be our damages. I think the customer has no grounds for a complaint in this matter. He told us he was going to use social media to bash us if we didn't reimburse him 100% of his plumber's bill. So we knew this would be coming. Unfortunately, we will not be paying another dime to the customer and I think he should be content with the $400 we paid him.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

The owner is falsifying statements to suit his case. I have never used the word "bash" in any context regarding my response to this business. I used social media to find good feedback about this business which is why I chose them. It's unfortunate that the few posts about this owner being unreasonable is actually true. In addition, the person who cut the line took verbal responsibility for his carelessness as did the foreman. The owner was not on site. The tone of his response is indicative of his lack of knowledge and instant need to be defensive when he knows his business did wrong by me as a paying customer. The facts remain as follows: the area where the water line was located was physically pointed out by me and witnessed by his workers, his workers did not take care in the work they were doing and made an error in judgement thus cutting the water line in my home, his own employees were whiteness to this including his foreman. I paid for the fix and was only reimbursed less than 50%. I expected full reimbursement of the plumber work (I did not ask for costs related to lost work time on my own part or the manual labor I performed to keep the repair costs down).

Regards,

Business

Response:

The customer's stance has not changed. Unfortunately there is nothing else we can do financially to satisfy his situation. Our view has not changed.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

The owner is wrong and should take financial responsibility for the errors caused by his crew. I'd like this to be posted publicly so others who are looking for a good company will avoid this one.

Regards,