RJL Communications, LLC

[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:   There are a number of inaccuracies in the letter presented to you by RJL Communications, LLC.  I feel it is best to start at the beginning to present you with a full understanding of what has happened to my property.  I am attaching the "Notice of Underground Excavation" dated December 12, 2013 that was placed on my front door.  This was written one week before December 19th, 2013 when RJL Communications became aware that no permit was required.  RJL Communications had a piece of equipment (ditch witch) placed on my property well past any "right-of-way". The machine was approximately 37 feet up onto my lawn and since the ground was wet, made deep impressions from the sidewalk up into the lawn.  The weight of the equipment also cracked my sidewalk.  I have attached pictures. The machine sat on my wet lawn quite awhile until their work was completed causing deeper impressions in my lawn.  I cannot understand why the machine could not be parked on the street when not in use. We were quite upset as to to the way they left our lawn but thought they would restore it to it's previous condition as stated in their "Notice of Underground Excavation." At that time we also noticed that the sidewalk had been cut and cracked.  Their initial notice to us indicated that they would be excavating "under the sidewalk."After waiting a week, I called the number provided on the notice (###-###-####) to see when someone would be making the necessary repairs to my lawn and sidewalk.  When I called that number I was instructed to call Ron B[redacted] at ###-###-####.  I did contact Mr. Ron B[redacted] and he said "they were very busy and would try to come by in the next several days." After a week went by, I called him again, he apologized and said he would be out soon.  Two weeks went by and I called him again, he said, "he had stopped by but didn't have any supplies with him to do the repair."  I once again expressed the concerns of the cracked sidewalk and the 4' x 4' piece of sidewalk that was cut. (Please see the attached pictures). He said that would not have been his crew because "they were to dig under the sidewalk." He clearly sidestepped the issue of the cracked sidewalk.  Mr. B[redacted] then indicated that he would check with his crew and get back to me.  He also indicated that he would be out to fix the damaged lawn.  My wife observed later in the week during her lunch break, between 12 noon and 1:00 pm , two men with what looked like a pic axe and a shovel, chopped at the ground, threw down some seed and some straw.  They clearly did not add any topsoil as their letter to you states.  The next day I called Mr. B[redacted] and stated my disappointment in the lawn restoration.  As far as he was concerned their part was done.  At that time, he also stated that it was necessary to cut the sidewalk because of the lines underneath, but he would put some filler in the cuts in the concrete and seal it.  I indicated to him that I did not want that done and I wanted by 20" run of sidewalk restored back as it was originally poured.  By this time it was May 2014 and I was going to be away for several weeks.  I stated to Mr. B[redacted] by phone, that since I was not going to be around to see what other damage he could do to my property he was to stay off my property.  I was going to try to find another solution to this problem.  I took care of replacing topsoil in the ruts, seeding and watering the damaged area at my own expense.  I also purchased concrete vinyl repair sealer and applied it to the cuts in the concrete at my own expense. However, this has not worked because the piece of concrete has already started to move and the possible oil in the lawn prevented the grass to grow.  The oil apparently seeped out of the "ditch witch" while it was parked 37" up into my lawn.Later on in the summer I noticed a [redacted] representative in our neighborhood.  I explained to him the problems I have been having and he urged me to put in a "problem ticket" on the company that did the work.  I called [redacted] on September 28th, 2014 and was given ticket #[redacted]. Mr. Ron B[redacted] called me on September 29th, 2014 to see what could be done to resolve the ticket.  I told him that I wanted my 20' run of sidewalk restored to it's original condition.  He said he would get back to me.  After not hearing from him, I called [redacted] again on October 1st, 2014 and had the "problem ticket" elevated.  Mr. B[redacted] called me on October 2nd, 2014 and said that they were not going to replace my 20' run of sidewalk, but would put a sealant in the cuts of the sidewalk.  I told him that I had already done that myself but it didn't hold.  Mr. B[redacted] indicated that he would check with his "superior" and let me know.  I once, again, didn't hear back from him as he promised so I called [redacted] again and was informed that my "problem ticket" had been resolved and closed???At this point, I requested another "problem ticket" #[redacted] which was to be elevated to a [redacted] supervisor, Donna Gladfelter.  I never had the opportunity at that time to speak with her but was told that she would call me with a time a [redacted] representative would be assigned to physically inspect the problem at my property.  I never received any call so I contacted [redacted] again.  To my dismay, the ticket was closed.  I called once again, another ticked was opened #[redacted] which was a complaint against the supervisor for never responding. I called [redacted] again and requested another "problem ticket" #[redacted] be opened for the repair of my sidewalk.  On November 18th, 2014 Mr. B[redacted] contacted me and indicated that the "problem ticket" was closed and there will be no further action.  I called [redacted] on this same day and was told that Amanda (someone in management) would call me that night.  No phone call ever came.  I am so frustrated in trying to deal with [redacted] and RJL Communications.  I noticed in their letter to you, the last paragraph on page 1 indicates that "the homeowner approached our supervisor while on site and requested that we do nothing further."  I have never personally met anyone from RJL Communications.  I have only ever talked with Ron B[redacted] and only by phone.  I have never met this individual!  I also want to point out on page 2 of RJL Communication's response "our position is that the sidewalk we cut is owned by the township."  This is false.  The sidewalk is owned by me and this has been confirmed with the Borough of East Berlin and the Police Chief, [redacted].  When I showed the response from RJL Communications to him, he agreed that the information is not accurate.  The Borough of East Berlin stressed to me that the sidewalk is owned by me and it is my responsibility if something happens to it.  I must keep it in proper repair.  Since the sidewalk is now cut and cracked there is no guarantee that it will not crack further or raise up and cause a personal injury (trip and fall) . Who is liable if this happens since RJL Communications caused the problem and cut and cracked the sidewalk??In conclusion, I feel that if this situation is not resolved by RJL Communications, I will have no other alternative but to contact an attorney, inform the Environmental Protection Agency of a possible oil spill on my lawn, (since the grass will not grow) and the FCC on the business practices of both RJL Communications, LLC and [redacted], since they did the hiring. Please see all attachments.  Thank youRegards,
[redacted]

Date: 12/24/2014
RJL Communications, LLC received a work order from our client to replace an underground line on [redacted]. in East Berlin, Pa on 12/06/13. Prior to any work taking place, we...

contacted East Berlin Borough to verify if a permit was needed for any of the work. We were informed on 12/19/13 that a permit was not required to work in the borough right of way. Due to the weather over the winter months, we were not able to begin the excavation until 03/10/14.When the crew arrived on site they reviewed the markings for the existing utilities. The existing electric, phone and cable lines ran directly under the middle of the sidewalk. Pennsylvania law states in section 4 of the Underground Utility Line ProtectionAct that it is the responsibility of the excavator “To exercise due care; and to take all reasonable steps necessary to avoid injury to or otherwise interfere with all lines where positions have been provided to the excavator by the facility owners pursuant to clause (5) of section 2. Within the tolerance zone the excavator shall employ prudent techniques, which may include hand-dug test holes to ascertain the precise position of such facilities. If insufficient information to safely excavate is available pursuant to clause (5) of section 2, the excavator shall employ like prudent techniques which shall be paid for by the project owner pursuant to clause (15) of this section.”Section 1 of the act defines the “Tolerance Zone” as the horizontal space within eighteen inches of the outside wall of a line or facility.In order to be complaint with this law, we had to remove approximately a 3’ x 4' section of sidewalk from a 20’ concrete pad. Upon completion of the excavation, the 4° section of sidewalk was replaced and the lawn area was restored.Two months after the work was completed we received a call from the customer at 102 [redacted]. He felt that more restoration was needed in the lawn area and that concrete sealant should be placed where the sidewalk was cut. A crew was sent to this location to address both of these issues. Top soil, grass seed and straw were placed in the lawn area, and when the crew went to place the sealant in the sidewalk they found it had already been completed by the homeowner.One month after this work was completed our company then received an email from our client requesting we return to the site again for further restoration. We were informed that the grass was not growing in a few of the areas where it was planted. We sent a supervisor to the property to take pictures to evaluate the extent of restoration that was needed. The homeowner approached our supervisor while on site and requested that we do nothing further.On 11/21/14 we then received another email from our client. This time the request was that we replace the entire 20° sidewalk and reimburse the customer for the top soil and seed he had purchased to restore his property. Our company has no issue with reimbursing the homeowner for receipts for the materials he purchased to have the lawn restored, but the request to have the sidewalk replaced is not standard practice. It is our company policy to make contact with a homeowner prior to cutting any sidewalk or driveway that is on PRIVATE property. The sidewalk we cut in this instance however, is one that is in the borough right of way. We confirmed this prior to any excavating taking place when we questioned the borough if a permit was needed for our work.After receiving the email from our client with the customer’s request, we again called the borough to look into the matter regarding the sidewalk. The road master for the Borough of East Berlin along with a local police officer went to the site and evaluated the condition of the sidewalk. Both came to the conclusion that the repair our company made was in compliance with the standards set forth by the borough, posed no safety hazard, and that no further repair was necessary. In addition to the two employees of the borough approving the work, our client also reviewed the sidewalk and approved the repair.In conclusion, our company’s position on the first repair issue listed on the customer desired outcome/settlement section is that we do not agree to replace the 20' section of sidewalk. Our position is that the sidewalk we cut is owned by the township, and the repair we made was approved by the township and our client. Our position on the second repair issue listed on the desired outcome/settlement is that we are willing to reimburse the receipts for the materials the homeowner listed to restore the lawn, (10 bags of top soil; [redacted] product/seed).Sincerely,Robert L
Controlling Member