[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it. If you and the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply. Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
We did video inspect line in question on 7/27/17 upon video inspection the line had collapsed due to age. I have attached the link for all to view. http://www.ridgidconnect.com/Home.aspx?key=w8OUdoczckQ9ueJkDIALlA%3d%3d&key=...⇄ The customer was on site when we...
video inspected the line and saw the collapse.The customer did say that he had issues with the line running slow prior to us coming to service him. Our jet hose is stuck in the line due to the line being collapsed prior to our arrival. We gave a proposal to repair the line. We will return the monies paid for the jetting service. As a courtesy to customer.I have attached the quotes and the video inspection form.
I have talked with the technician who went out there the first time. He stated that he never pulled the toilet to do the work and simply used a toilet auger and charged $150. The actual price for this job is $190, but with a $40 coupon $150 makes sense. To pull the toilet and auger is $375. I...
attempted to contact the customer, but there was no answer. I left a voicemail for the customer, but have not heard back. I would be willing to send someone back to pull the toilet, auger the toilet & then rest the toilet for a $100 less than the $375 price. That would mean the customer would be responsible for $125 at the time of service. If the customer would rather, I would be willing to refund the $150 instead. Please let me know.
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it. If you and...
the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply. Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Mr. [redacted],We are sorry to hear that you were not pleased with your recent experience with Roto-Rooter. We have already brought your concerns to the attention of the general manager of this branch and will keep you in the loop so we can come to a resolution very soon. Thank you for the...
Please see the attached document.7 (II)- Roto-Rooter Services Cornpany5375 Naiman Parkway (DDT. E. Coco1-800-GET-ROTO (438-7686) PUBING 2PH: (440) 287-7064 IRAIN SERVICE Fax (440) 542-0570Dear Lynne,I will answer each of Mr. [redacted]' points below in italics following each point, I may have to move away fron just the documented facts in order answer some of the points.Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.)Regards,[redacted]Mr. Trebec's offer is appreciated, but it does not cover all the expenses incurred to fix Roto-Rooter's unfinished work.I agree with Mr. Trebec that we should look at facts at our disposal and then try to conclude what happened by logically evaluating them.Fact: I am a mechanical engineer. I worked as a plant engineer for Eveready Battery at the [redacted] Edgewater plant. I know piping. I had a good understanding of the problem. Both of my sewer lines were old and made with sections of ceramic pipe, Roots from my tree would eventually be able to enter the pipes through the joints and plug them.I cannot attest to Mr. [redacted]' occupation. From the accounts I received from Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted], the Roto-Rooter representatives who responded to the initial service call, Mr. [redacted] was present for the initial inspection and did seen more knowledgeable than the average customer, Mrs. [redacted] was also present.Tree roots are a major problem for drain pipes as they age.Fact: Roto Rooter told me that my storm sewer was completely blocked.Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] confirm this conversation. The line was blocked to the point where it would not allow for a complete camera inspection. The camera could not pass through and inspect the entire line,Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] explained the entire situation to both Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]. They attest to recommending that the entire line be replaced. This included removal of the sidewalk and bushes near the home. Therefore, a higher priced job. The [redacted]' indicated that they would like to think about it. Mr. [redacted] gave then his business card and told them to let him know what they would like to do once they decided. Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] then left the home and began putting their belongings into their vehicle.Mr. [redacted] cane out of the home and said, "let's do it". However, he did not want to remove the sidewalk unless absolutely necessary. They agreed to complete the repairs between the sidewalks and then determine if any additional work would be needed once the pipe under the sidewalk was available to view. Mr. [redacted] proposed the price and they agreed to the work. Mr. [redacted] said he would prepared the necessary paperwork and return for signatures and to begin the work.Mr. [redacted] prepared the paperwork and arranged for the city permit. He then brought all necessary paperwork to the home to have it signed. Mr. [redacted] was at work at the time and Mrs.[redacted] signed on their behalf. No changes to the previously agreed upon work were made.Fact: My wife is very non-technical and had at best a hazy understanding of the two sewers and the problems with both,Please see above. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] were present for the investigation and proposal of work. No changes were made to work that had been agreed to and no new technical information or issues werediscussed.Fact: I did not sign the proposal submitted by Mr. Trebec as evidence. MY WIFE DID. I was at work.I acknowledge this fact, Mrs. [redacted] signed on their behalf. I apologize for having said that Mr. [redacted] signed the proposal.Fact: When I arrive home from work, Roto-Rooter was loading their equipment back on their trailer. They had opened my front yard and filled in the excavation in less than 8 hours.Mr. [redacted] did arrive home prior to our crew leaving the property.Fact: I was unhappy that they had just dug sidewalk to sidewalk, but the trench was already filled in and I assumed, based on the very recognizable name of Roto-Rooter, that the problem had been fixed. So I signed the invoice.I cannot speak to how Mr. [redacted] was feeling. The crew leader, Chuck [redacted], attests that no dissatisfaction of the work was discussed. The work that was agreed upon and contracted for was completed.Fact: Roto-Rooter never demonstrated to me that the plug in my storm sewer had been repaired.A great deal of the pipe was impacted with roots, most likely from the tree in the front yard. Replacing the drain line with new pipe is the most permanent way to correct the issue. Roto-Rooter would be happy to schedule a time to meet Mr. [redacted] at his home and camera inspect the work we .pleted???cFact: water was pouring into my basement sump every time it rained after Roto-Rooter had finished the excavation of my front yard.We cannot debate that this may have been happening and was likely due to the storm line being blocked beyond the sidewalk we were contracted to stop at. We had recommended that the entire line be replaced all the way to the house. Please see above.Fact: I contacted Roto-Rooter about the problem shortly after it began. They sent a servcieman out. I did not get his name, but he had very recognizable features. He wasn't 6'4" tall with a big red beard, nor was he 5'6" tall and 300 pounds. He did have strong East Asian features. He told me there was nothing wrong. I asked him to run a camera through my storm sewer and he requested $350 which I declined. That meant a lot of water was pouring through my basement wall and eventually into the Sump probably causing damage.The technician who arrived was Zo (short for a very long name). He did refer the request to Mr. [redacted], who was there initially with Mr. [redacted]. He came and did a camera inspection for no additional charge and confirmed that the remainder of the drain pipe required repair.Fact: Finally, Roto-Rooter agreed to run a camera through my storm sewer months later. It was done by Dennis [redacted] and he did find a break in the line only several feet from where Roto Rooter stopped the excavation.Please see above. We confirm that Mr. [redacted] called on 5/4/17 at 3:18 pm.Mr. [redacted] stated that Mr. [redacted] gave him an estimate for $3,000 to do the additional work. Mr. [redacted] declined the proposal for the additional work.Fact: I tried to fix the problem myself, but after digging down and finding the broken connection, Iran into the sidewalk.This problem was discussed prior to the initial service in November. The [redacted]' had not wanted to go to the extent of removing the sidewalk at that time. This resulted in the agreed upon work to be between the sidewalks only.Fact: I called Mr. [redacted] to remove a piece of the sidewalk.No response necessary.Fact: I realized that I couldn't fix the problem myself and asked them to fix it for me.Mo response necess???.Fact: I asked them to replace both the old storm and sanitary sewer lines between my house and where Roto-Rooter had left off (I assumed it would be at my sidewalk based on the invoice I signed.) They charged me $2200 to do it. They had to bring out their equipment and start from scratch other than the hole that I had dug.It is certainly the right of every homeowner to choose the vendors they hire.Fact: Mr. [redacted] discovered that Roto-Rooter had not stopped where they said they had. They stopped 3 feet short of the sidewalk with the storm sewer and 8 feet short of the sidewalk with the sanitary sewer. The water main was lying on top of the sanitary sewer. It is made of copper and would certainly have been severed if a power shovel were used, so they had to excavate a lot by hand which slowed them down. Roto Rooter would have also seen the water main there. Mr [redacted] charged another $1500 for the additional excavation and piping.When doing a partial repair on clay pipe the most effective place to stop and connect into the existing pipe is at the closest bell the stopping point. This allows for a more secure connection and wouldprevent having to undermine the soil sidewalk. I cannot verify that was the case in this instance, but it is common practice, And with the stated differences being 3 and 8 feet, this is the most likely case.In any event, I accept Mr. [redacted]' claim of 3 and 8 feet short of the sidewalk.Fact: I have many pictures with tape measures showing where Roto-Rooter left off.I accept Mr. [redacted]' claim.Fact: City inspector Dan [redacted] saw Roto-Rooter's proposal that my wife signed and also the open excavation showing where Roto-Rooter left off. He was surprised the previous inspector signed off based on what he read in the proposal. He has the type of license that allows him to testify in Court and would be willing to do so.I cannot comment on anything Mr. [redacted] may or may not have said regarding the job we completed or the actions of a fellow inspector,Mr. [redacted] who was present on the initial visit and witnessed the agreement made, and also conducted the complimentary camera inspection, holds the same inspector license and was a city inspector here in the [redacted] area before resigning to join Roto-Rooter last fall.Mr. [redacted], was the crew leader on the repair in November, is a licensed Ohio Master Plumber, with 35 years experience.Based on the facts, I think a reasonable person would agree to the following conclusions:Why would an engineer or a mechanically inclined person or even a person with common sense who had a clear understanding of the problem consent to have someone just dig a trench and lay pipe? No, they would expect the problem to be fixed.I do not disagree with Mr. [redacted]' statement. We deal with multiple customers with a variety of occupations. Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] originally proposed to replace the entire drain line. It was Mr. [redacted]' decision to only replace the pipe from sidewalk to sidewalk. Mrs. [redacted] signed the proposal on their behalf. The [redacted]' were not charged for the additional footage or sidewalk removal. The drain had roots throughout it. Roto-Rooter replaced it with new pipe.Roto-Rooter wanted to get in and out as fast as they could to reap maximum profit. They took advantage of my wife who did not understand the issue and who had not discussed the issue with Roto-Rooter. The fact that they didn't even do what they had charged (not even close) bolsters this conclusion,like Eveready, Roto-Rooter is a for profit organization. Roto-Rooter would have gladly done the additional repair as that is how they survive as an organization. Roto-Rooter offered to do the additional work on two different occasions, as part of the initial work and with Mr. [redacted]'s supplemental proposal of $3,000 months later. Both proposals were declined.Mrs. [redacted] signed only what had been agreed to during the initial visit. Nothing was changed and no attempt to take advantage of her was made. When Mr. [redacted] arrived with the completed proposal, Mr. [redacted] would have been just as welcome to sign it. If the scope of the work written on the proposal was different than agreed, it could have been rewritten prior to the work commencing.Assuming Mr. [redacted]' statement of our repair being 3 and 8 feet short of the sidewalk is correct, as discussed above, considering the length of the yard I believe the statement of "not even close" to be an exaggeration. But I will address that below.They could have easily done the job right, but it would have taken them an additional day or half day.We do not disagree. If done as part of the initial job, it would have been very efficient, but we were not authorized to remove any sidewalk.Additional footage would have been at an additional cost, and the sidewalk would have been affected. Roto-Rooter also gave a later proposal of $3,000 to do the additional work. This was declined.The invoice from Mr. [redacted] is $3700. I expect Roto-rooter to pay that amount.Roto-Rooter did not hire Mr. [redacted]. Roto-Rooter offered to complete the work two different times and for less money. The invoice from Mr. [redacted] is the result of a decision made by Mr. [redacted],Previously I offered a refund of $1,305.00 as a good will gesture and act of good faith, even though Mr. [redacted]' chose to use another company that was more expensive. This was not a refund, as RotoRooter was not contracted for or paid for the additional work completed by Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] has declined this offer,I have also accepted Mr. [redacted]' claim of our repair ending 3 feet short with the storm drain and 8 feet short with the sanitary drain. We charged Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] $174 per foot for the replacement of two drain pipes. This would indicate $87.00 per drain pipe.If we use the 3-foot number for the storm drain and multiply by $87.00 that would be $261.00. Usingthe 8-foot number for the sanitary drain and multiplying by $87.00 would be $696.00. This would total to $957.00.I will extend the initial good faith offer of $1,305.00 and add the $957.00. I sincerely believe a resolution offering of $2,262.00 would be more than reasonable and in fact above and beyond what would be reasonably due. Roto-Rooter prides itself on the services we provide and wish to take every opportunity to satisfy our customers.[redacted], 8/21/2017Ron Trebec 8/28/17 Roto-Rooter Services Co
After speaking with Ms. [redacted], we let her know that the remaining balance has been zero'd out through a credit memo and that she currently has a zero balance on her account. She was happy with this end result. We are now considering this matter closed.
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it. If you and the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply. Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Spoke to customer agreeing to refund partial payment totaling [redacted]. Then we are mailing her a copy of invoice stating of the work that was that performed at her property for insurance purposes.
"The work performed was not to my satisfaction the first guy who came he knew how to unclog drains, he wasn't a plumber. And he said that he was standby and they call him as a standby. He spent over two hours at my house and nothing got done, and he ruined the pipes that we purchased, then he called RotoRooter and they said that they would send a master plumber the next day. So, the next day, I spoke with the master plumber (that wasn't a master plumber) that the other guy did a poor job and he had to correct his mistakes, and that there was piece missing that he couldn't do his job, he said there was a clamp there was supposed to go around the pipes so it wouldn't leak, and he put some sort of plastic around it, and when I turned my dishwasher on, it started leaking and I didn't want to ruin my cabinets so I put a pot underneath to catch the dripping water. Then I contacted RotoRooter to tell them what happened, and they said they would get the same guy to come back out to fix, and he came back, and told me that it should be fixed, and it wasn't again, and I didn't call back because I didn't want them to do it, so I called the contractor who remodeled the kitchen, he put the pipes together and it's running good. They sent me a check for $40 that I asked for back in June for the coupon and they sent it I want to say near end of August or beginning of September, all it does it takes off the discount it doesn't take into account the pipes that I purchased and it doesn't take into account the person that I had to hire to fix what they had messed up three times. The balance would be $300 of a refund."
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. There was not water on the floor when Bill arrived. He didn’t believe me as to what the problem was. The little bit that had backed up from the shower drain was cleared from the tile floor in the bathroom, the only indication water had been there was the damp towels I had left as I knew I could not yet use my washer. We called before there was a big mess so as to not have the significant damage Bill-caused by running water and flushing the toilet three times downstairs and twice upstairs. Bill did call water restoration as I mentioned but he failed to mention to them that he caused the water to flood out. Yes there were roots, that is why we contacted roto rooter. But the extensive flooding was not there. We have tried contacting the company. We finally received a message but the message contained a first name of jay and a contact number that when called said subscriber not in service. That has been the only contact from Roto-Rooter since we field the complaint.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I need $** refund.
Regards,
[redacted]
Again:Roto-Rooter was at [redacted] to inspect a main sewer line for the address on 4-23-2017. At that time the Roto-Rooter Technician both inspected using a camera and machine cleaned the mainline. Upon inspection there were roots present from approximately 25ft to 60ft. The roots present were removed through machine cleaning. The roots infiltrated the sewer line at a joint where the line changes from cast iron to a clay tile material which is a common occurrence. The main sewer line is now free flowing and clean of roots, however roots will again become present in the line. There is a six month guarantee on the cleaning of the mainline. During the camera inspection there were no breaks or visible cracks in the line at this time. After cleaning the mainline it is functioning as designed. Robert [redacted]General Manager
That is unacceptable, My insurance company called me & informed me that the check was cashed on September 18, 2017. It has been seven to ten business days three times over.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Complaint ID [redacted] Inboxx [redacted] 8:36 AM (3 hours ago)to me Dear Ms. Prescott:We received the response from the business against which we lodged the complaint and there seems to be no way to respond to their response to us on the website to which we were directed. We are not satisfied with the resolution, and this is because the company, Roto-Rooter, continues to misrepresent the extent of the work they performed for us. The two technicians did not wear respirators or any other kind of breathing equipment -- we were present in the house and basement during the time they performed the work and they had nothing on their faces. Furthermore, there was at no time 10 or more machines in the basement, but a a maximum of four. I cannot say what each machine did, but four machines were there at the most, and then two of these machines (air dryers) were left for additional time. Lastly, even if these individual charges were all authentic, we find them unreasonable given the work involved. The labor involved was minimal, and unskilled; the antimicrobial spray cannot possibly cost even close to what we are being charged, given that a gallon of it costs well under $50 retail and it was sprayed on in less than twenty minutes. We find the charges, even with the small reduction, utterly unreasonable. We know that we are hardly the first customers to complain of Roto-Rooter's outrageous prices, and we would like to see a stronger involvement from the Revdex.com on this issue.Dr. [redacted] and Dr. [redacted]
This letter was delivered to Mrs. [redacted] on 5/2/17 at 3:15pm. 5-2-2017 Roto-Rooter was at [redacted] to inspect a main sewer line for the address on 4-23-2017. At that time the Roto-Rooter Technician both inspected using a camera and machine cleaned the...
mainline. Upon inspection there were roots present from approximately 25ft to 60ft. The roots present were removed through machine cleaning. The roots infiltrated the sewer line at a joint where the line changes from cast iron to a clay tile material which is a common occurrence. The main sewer line is now free flowing and clean of roots, however roots will again become present in the line. There is a six month guarantee on the cleaning of the mainline. During the camera inspection there were no breaks or visible cracks in the line at this time. After cleaning the mainline it is functioning as designed. Robert [redacted]General Manager Robert [redacted]General Manager Roto-Rooter Services Company
Multiple calls were made as well as emails to resolve customers concerns on arrival time. We had an appt with the customer and due to us not having a technician available and rescheduled. We made attempts to get there however we couldn't get in touch with the customer.
11/9/2017 3:54pm Frank [redacted] - Restoration Manager left a message on customers voice mail to call him back on his cell number (he can be reached at any time)
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it. If you and the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply. Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
We did video inspect line in question on 7/27/17 upon video inspection the line had collapsed due to age. I have attached the link for all to view. http://www.ridgidconnect.com/Home.aspx?key=w8OUdoczckQ9ueJkDIALlA%3d%3d&key=...⇄ The customer was on site when we...
video inspected the line and saw the collapse.The customer did say that he had issues with the line running slow prior to us coming to service him. Our jet hose is stuck in the line due to the line being collapsed prior to our arrival. We gave a proposal to repair the line. We will return the monies paid for the jetting service. As a courtesy to customer.I have attached the quotes and the video inspection form.
I have talked with the technician who went out there the first time. He stated that he never pulled the toilet to do the work and simply used a toilet auger and charged $150. The actual price for this job is $190, but with a $40 coupon $150 makes sense. To pull the toilet and auger is $375. I...
attempted to contact the customer, but there was no answer. I left a voicemail for the customer, but have not heard back. I would be willing to send someone back to pull the toilet, auger the toilet & then rest the toilet for a $100 less than the $375 price. That would mean the customer would be responsible for $125 at the time of service. If the customer would rather, I would be willing to refund the $150 instead. Please let me know.
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it. If you and...
the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply. Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Dear Mr. [redacted],We are sorry to hear that you were not pleased with your recent experience with Roto-Rooter. We have already brought your concerns to the attention of the general manager of this branch and will keep you in the loop so we can come to a resolution very soon. Thank you for the...
feedback!Pat S[redacted]Customer Satisfaction Manager
Please see the attached document.7 (II)- Roto-Rooter Services Cornpany5375 Naiman Parkway (DDT. E. Coco1-800-GET-ROTO (438-7686) PUBING 2PH: (440) 287-7064 IRAIN SERVICE Fax (440) 542-0570Dear Lynne,I will answer each of Mr. [redacted]' points below in italics following each point, I may have to move away fron just the documented facts in order answer some of the points.Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.)Regards,[redacted]Mr. Trebec's offer is appreciated, but it does not cover all the expenses incurred to fix Roto-Rooter's unfinished work.I agree with Mr. Trebec that we should look at facts at our disposal and then try to conclude what happened by logically evaluating them.Fact: I am a mechanical engineer. I worked as a plant engineer for Eveready Battery at the [redacted] Edgewater plant. I know piping. I had a good understanding of the problem. Both of my sewer lines were old and made with sections of ceramic pipe, Roots from my tree would eventually be able to enter the pipes through the joints and plug them.I cannot attest to Mr. [redacted]' occupation. From the accounts I received from Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted], the Roto-Rooter representatives who responded to the initial service call, Mr. [redacted] was present for the initial inspection and did seen more knowledgeable than the average customer, Mrs. [redacted] was also present.Tree roots are a major problem for drain pipes as they age.Fact: Roto Rooter told me that my storm sewer was completely blocked.Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] confirm this conversation. The line was blocked to the point where it would not allow for a complete camera inspection. The camera could not pass through and inspect the entire line,Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] explained the entire situation to both Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]. They attest to recommending that the entire line be replaced. This included removal of the sidewalk and bushes near the home. Therefore, a higher priced job. The [redacted]' indicated that they would like to think about it. Mr. [redacted] gave then his business card and told them to let him know what they would like to do once they decided. Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] then left the home and began putting their belongings into their vehicle.Mr. [redacted] cane out of the home and said, "let's do it". However, he did not want to remove the sidewalk unless absolutely necessary. They agreed to complete the repairs between the sidewalks and then determine if any additional work would be needed once the pipe under the sidewalk was available to view. Mr. [redacted] proposed the price and they agreed to the work. Mr. [redacted] said he would prepared the necessary paperwork and return for signatures and to begin the work.Mr. [redacted] prepared the paperwork and arranged for the city permit. He then brought all necessary paperwork to the home to have it signed. Mr. [redacted] was at work at the time and Mrs.[redacted] signed on their behalf. No changes to the previously agreed upon work were made.Fact: My wife is very non-technical and had at best a hazy understanding of the two sewers and the problems with both,Please see above. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] were present for the investigation and proposal of work. No changes were made to work that had been agreed to and no new technical information or issues werediscussed.Fact: I did not sign the proposal submitted by Mr. Trebec as evidence. MY WIFE DID. I was at work.I acknowledge this fact, Mrs. [redacted] signed on their behalf. I apologize for having said that Mr. [redacted] signed the proposal.Fact: When I arrive home from work, Roto-Rooter was loading their equipment back on their trailer. They had opened my front yard and filled in the excavation in less than 8 hours.Mr. [redacted] did arrive home prior to our crew leaving the property.Fact: I was unhappy that they had just dug sidewalk to sidewalk, but the trench was already filled in and I assumed, based on the very recognizable name of Roto-Rooter, that the problem had been fixed. So I signed the invoice.I cannot speak to how Mr. [redacted] was feeling. The crew leader, Chuck [redacted], attests that no dissatisfaction of the work was discussed. The work that was agreed upon and contracted for was completed.Fact: Roto-Rooter never demonstrated to me that the plug in my storm sewer had been repaired.A great deal of the pipe was impacted with roots, most likely from the tree in the front yard. Replacing the drain line with new pipe is the most permanent way to correct the issue. Roto-Rooter would be happy to schedule a time to meet Mr. [redacted] at his home and camera inspect the work we .pleted???cFact: water was pouring into my basement sump every time it rained after Roto-Rooter had finished the excavation of my front yard.We cannot debate that this may have been happening and was likely due to the storm line being blocked beyond the sidewalk we were contracted to stop at. We had recommended that the entire line be replaced all the way to the house. Please see above.Fact: I contacted Roto-Rooter about the problem shortly after it began. They sent a servcieman out. I did not get his name, but he had very recognizable features. He wasn't 6'4" tall with a big red beard, nor was he 5'6" tall and 300 pounds. He did have strong East Asian features. He told me there was nothing wrong. I asked him to run a camera through my storm sewer and he requested $350 which I declined. That meant a lot of water was pouring through my basement wall and eventually into the Sump probably causing damage.The technician who arrived was Zo (short for a very long name). He did refer the request to Mr. [redacted], who was there initially with Mr. [redacted]. He came and did a camera inspection for no additional charge and confirmed that the remainder of the drain pipe required repair.Fact: Finally, Roto-Rooter agreed to run a camera through my storm sewer months later. It was done by Dennis [redacted] and he did find a break in the line only several feet from where Roto Rooter stopped the excavation.Please see above. We confirm that Mr. [redacted] called on 5/4/17 at 3:18 pm.Mr. [redacted] stated that Mr. [redacted] gave him an estimate for $3,000 to do the additional work. Mr. [redacted] declined the proposal for the additional work.Fact: I tried to fix the problem myself, but after digging down and finding the broken connection, Iran into the sidewalk.This problem was discussed prior to the initial service in November. The [redacted]' had not wanted to go to the extent of removing the sidewalk at that time. This resulted in the agreed upon work to be between the sidewalks only.Fact: I called Mr. [redacted] to remove a piece of the sidewalk.No response necessary.Fact: I realized that I couldn't fix the problem myself and asked them to fix it for me.Mo response necess???.Fact: I asked them to replace both the old storm and sanitary sewer lines between my house and where Roto-Rooter had left off (I assumed it would be at my sidewalk based on the invoice I signed.) They charged me $2200 to do it. They had to bring out their equipment and start from scratch other than the hole that I had dug.It is certainly the right of every homeowner to choose the vendors they hire.Fact: Mr. [redacted] discovered that Roto-Rooter had not stopped where they said they had. They stopped 3 feet short of the sidewalk with the storm sewer and 8 feet short of the sidewalk with the sanitary sewer. The water main was lying on top of the sanitary sewer. It is made of copper and would certainly have been severed if a power shovel were used, so they had to excavate a lot by hand which slowed them down. Roto Rooter would have also seen the water main there. Mr [redacted] charged another $1500 for the additional excavation and piping.When doing a partial repair on clay pipe the most effective place to stop and connect into the existing pipe is at the closest bell the stopping point. This allows for a more secure connection and wouldprevent having to undermine the soil sidewalk. I cannot verify that was the case in this instance, but it is common practice, And with the stated differences being 3 and 8 feet, this is the most likely case.In any event, I accept Mr. [redacted]' claim of 3 and 8 feet short of the sidewalk.Fact: I have many pictures with tape measures showing where Roto-Rooter left off.I accept Mr. [redacted]' claim.Fact: City inspector Dan [redacted] saw Roto-Rooter's proposal that my wife signed and also the open excavation showing where Roto-Rooter left off. He was surprised the previous inspector signed off based on what he read in the proposal. He has the type of license that allows him to testify in Court and would be willing to do so.I cannot comment on anything Mr. [redacted] may or may not have said regarding the job we completed or the actions of a fellow inspector,Mr. [redacted] who was present on the initial visit and witnessed the agreement made, and also conducted the complimentary camera inspection, holds the same inspector license and was a city inspector here in the [redacted] area before resigning to join Roto-Rooter last fall.Mr. [redacted], was the crew leader on the repair in November, is a licensed Ohio Master Plumber, with 35 years experience.Based on the facts, I think a reasonable person would agree to the following conclusions:Why would an engineer or a mechanically inclined person or even a person with common sense who had a clear understanding of the problem consent to have someone just dig a trench and lay pipe? No, they would expect the problem to be fixed.I do not disagree with Mr. [redacted]' statement. We deal with multiple customers with a variety of occupations. Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] originally proposed to replace the entire drain line. It was Mr. [redacted]' decision to only replace the pipe from sidewalk to sidewalk. Mrs. [redacted] signed the proposal on their behalf. The [redacted]' were not charged for the additional footage or sidewalk removal. The drain had roots throughout it. Roto-Rooter replaced it with new pipe.Roto-Rooter wanted to get in and out as fast as they could to reap maximum profit. They took advantage of my wife who did not understand the issue and who had not discussed the issue with Roto-Rooter. The fact that they didn't even do what they had charged (not even close) bolsters this conclusion,like Eveready, Roto-Rooter is a for profit organization. Roto-Rooter would have gladly done the additional repair as that is how they survive as an organization. Roto-Rooter offered to do the additional work on two different occasions, as part of the initial work and with Mr. [redacted]'s supplemental proposal of $3,000 months later. Both proposals were declined.Mrs. [redacted] signed only what had been agreed to during the initial visit. Nothing was changed and no attempt to take advantage of her was made. When Mr. [redacted] arrived with the completed proposal, Mr. [redacted] would have been just as welcome to sign it. If the scope of the work written on the proposal was different than agreed, it could have been rewritten prior to the work commencing.Assuming Mr. [redacted]' statement of our repair being 3 and 8 feet short of the sidewalk is correct, as discussed above, considering the length of the yard I believe the statement of "not even close" to be an exaggeration. But I will address that below.They could have easily done the job right, but it would have taken them an additional day or half day.We do not disagree. If done as part of the initial job, it would have been very efficient, but we were not authorized to remove any sidewalk.Additional footage would have been at an additional cost, and the sidewalk would have been affected. Roto-Rooter also gave a later proposal of $3,000 to do the additional work. This was declined.The invoice from Mr. [redacted] is $3700. I expect Roto-rooter to pay that amount.Roto-Rooter did not hire Mr. [redacted]. Roto-Rooter offered to complete the work two different times and for less money. The invoice from Mr. [redacted] is the result of a decision made by Mr. [redacted],Previously I offered a refund of $1,305.00 as a good will gesture and act of good faith, even though Mr. [redacted]' chose to use another company that was more expensive. This was not a refund, as RotoRooter was not contracted for or paid for the additional work completed by Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] has declined this offer,I have also accepted Mr. [redacted]' claim of our repair ending 3 feet short with the storm drain and 8 feet short with the sanitary drain. We charged Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] $174 per foot for the replacement of two drain pipes. This would indicate $87.00 per drain pipe.If we use the 3-foot number for the storm drain and multiply by $87.00 that would be $261.00. Usingthe 8-foot number for the sanitary drain and multiplying by $87.00 would be $696.00. This would total to $957.00.I will extend the initial good faith offer of $1,305.00 and add the $957.00. I sincerely believe a resolution offering of $2,262.00 would be more than reasonable and in fact above and beyond what would be reasonably due. Roto-Rooter prides itself on the services we provide and wish to take every opportunity to satisfy our customers.[redacted], 8/21/2017Ron Trebec 8/28/17 Roto-Rooter Services Co
After speaking with Ms. [redacted], we let her know that the remaining balance has been zero'd out through a credit memo and that she currently has a zero balance on her account. She was happy with this end result. We are now considering this matter closed.
I need to know what the service address is with the zip code in order to look into this complaint Thanks Pat [redacted]
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it. If you and the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply. Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Spoke to customer agreeing to refund partial payment totaling [redacted]. Then we are mailing her a copy of invoice stating of the work that was that performed at her property for insurance purposes.
"The work performed was not to my satisfaction the first guy who came he knew how to unclog drains, he wasn't a plumber. And he said that he was standby and they call him as a standby. He spent over two hours at my house and nothing got done, and he ruined the pipes that we purchased, then he called RotoRooter and they said that they would send a master plumber the next day. So, the next day, I spoke with the master plumber (that wasn't a master plumber) that the other guy did a poor job and he had to correct his mistakes, and that there was piece missing that he couldn't do his job, he said there was a clamp there was supposed to go around the pipes so it wouldn't leak, and he put some sort of plastic around it, and when I turned my dishwasher on, it started leaking and I didn't want to ruin my cabinets so I put a pot underneath to catch the dripping water. Then I contacted RotoRooter to tell them what happened, and they said they would get the same guy to come back out to fix, and he came back, and told me that it should be fixed, and it wasn't again, and I didn't call back because I didn't want them to do it, so I called the contractor who remodeled the kitchen, he put the pipes together and it's running good. They sent me a check for $40 that I asked for back in June for the coupon and they sent it I want to say near end of August or beginning of September, all it does it takes off the discount it doesn't take into account the pipes that I purchased and it doesn't take into account the person that I had to hire to fix what they had messed up three times. The balance would be $300 of a refund."
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. There was not water on the floor when Bill arrived. He didn’t believe me as to what the problem was. The little bit that had backed up from the shower drain was cleared from the tile floor in the bathroom, the only indication water had been there was the damp towels I had left as I knew I could not yet use my washer. We called before there was a big mess so as to not have the significant damage Bill-caused by running water and flushing the toilet three times downstairs and twice upstairs. Bill did call water restoration as I mentioned but he failed to mention to them that he caused the water to flood out. Yes there were roots, that is why we contacted roto rooter. But the extensive flooding was not there. We have tried contacting the company. We finally received a message but the message contained a first name of jay and a contact number that when called said subscriber not in service. That has been the only contact from Roto-Rooter since we field the complaint.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I need $** refund.
Regards,
[redacted]
Again:Roto-Rooter was at [redacted] to inspect a main sewer line for the address on 4-23-2017. At that time the Roto-Rooter Technician both inspected using a camera and machine cleaned the mainline. Upon inspection there were roots present from approximately 25ft to 60ft. The roots present were removed through machine cleaning. The roots infiltrated the sewer line at a joint where the line changes from cast iron to a clay tile material which is a common occurrence. The main sewer line is now free flowing and clean of roots, however roots will again become present in the line. There is a six month guarantee on the cleaning of the mainline. During the camera inspection there were no breaks or visible cracks in the line at this time. After cleaning the mainline it is functioning as designed. Robert [redacted]General Manager
Spoke to Mr.[redacted] informed that repairs have been completed customer is satisfied.
That is unacceptable, My insurance company called me & informed me that the check was cashed on September 18, 2017. It has been seven to ten business days three times over.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Complaint ID [redacted] Inboxx [redacted] 8:36 AM (3 hours ago)to me Dear Ms. Prescott:We received the response from the business against which we lodged the complaint and there seems to be no way to respond to their response to us on the website to which we were directed. We are not satisfied with the resolution, and this is because the company, Roto-Rooter, continues to misrepresent the extent of the work they performed for us. The two technicians did not wear respirators or any other kind of breathing equipment -- we were present in the house and basement during the time they performed the work and they had nothing on their faces. Furthermore, there was at no time 10 or more machines in the basement, but a a maximum of four. I cannot say what each machine did, but four machines were there at the most, and then two of these machines (air dryers) were left for additional time. Lastly, even if these individual charges were all authentic, we find them unreasonable given the work involved. The labor involved was minimal, and unskilled; the antimicrobial spray cannot possibly cost even close to what we are being charged, given that a gallon of it costs well under $50 retail and it was sprayed on in less than twenty minutes. We find the charges, even with the small reduction, utterly unreasonable. We know that we are hardly the first customers to complain of Roto-Rooter's outrageous prices, and we would like to see a stronger involvement from the Revdex.com on this issue.Dr. [redacted] and Dr. [redacted]
This letter was delivered to Mrs. [redacted] on 5/2/17 at 3:15pm. 5-2-2017 Roto-Rooter was at [redacted] to inspect a main sewer line for the address on 4-23-2017. At that time the Roto-Rooter Technician both inspected using a camera and machine cleaned the...
mainline. Upon inspection there were roots present from approximately 25ft to 60ft. The roots present were removed through machine cleaning. The roots infiltrated the sewer line at a joint where the line changes from cast iron to a clay tile material which is a common occurrence. The main sewer line is now free flowing and clean of roots, however roots will again become present in the line. There is a six month guarantee on the cleaning of the mainline. During the camera inspection there were no breaks or visible cracks in the line at this time. After cleaning the mainline it is functioning as designed. Robert [redacted]General Manager Robert [redacted]General Manager Roto-Rooter Services Company
Multiple calls were made as well as emails to resolve customers concerns on arrival time. We had an appt with the customer and due to us not having a technician available and rescheduled. We made attempts to get there however we couldn't get in touch with the customer.
11/9/2017 3:54pm Frank [redacted] - Restoration Manager left a message on customers voice mail to call him back on his cell number (he can be reached at any time)