Sevacko, D R Plumbing & Heating

D.R Sevacko Plumbing would like to have the owner/master plumber of the company go out to MsHenderson's home to investigate and resolve MsHenderson's concerns

The warranty company that this customer has states there is a $deductible for each visit, that is their policyThe first visits were months apart resulting in $deductibles, if his his warranty company felt a deductible was not warranted then it would have been waived As for the young black male, we have nor ever had a young black male that has worked within our company so clearly there is some confusion regarding this customer Both deductibles were required at the time of each visit therefore no refund needs to be made to this customer.The answer why the flange can not be broken by tightening down the toilet is because the toilet bolts hold the toilet to the floor not to the flange, the toilet itself would have cracked if the bolts were to tight, the broken flange is again a separate issue My company is not trying to scam anyone his warranty clearly states that any call back over days requires another $deductible to be paid and that is exactly how the matter was taken care of I've spoken to his warranty company regarding this matter and they have stated that each $deductible was due when the tech arrived, their policy actually is to collect the deductible before even accessing any issue, we are to greet the customer when they open the door, advise them that their deductible is due at that time, then proceed to have the customer explain the issue they are there to take care of and show the tech the wayThe customer states that is had not leak the entire time between the 1st and 2nd visit which is where each of the deductibles come from Again we are not in the business of scamming anyone we followed his own warranty company's policy, and the customer is advised of the deductible when they place the call, Ray did not break the flange on this toilet, the customer called because his toilet was loose, so we tightened it to the floor and again the toilet would have broken or cracked if tightened to much not the flange The matter is not one that I believe should go any father, there were trips made and the 2nd one was over the day period that is the policy therefore $deductibles were due, per the warranty company and that is the reimbursement that is being requested

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
Patrice Moore

D.R Sevacko Plumbing would like to have the owner/master plumber of the company go out to Ms. Henderson's home to investigate and resolve Ms. Henderson's concerns.

The first visit to the [redacted] home was not in the fall of 2014 the actual date was between August 15-18 2014, his home warranty company was billed n the 18th of August.  The tech that was there was Ray a member of the Sevacko family, the owners older brother, at that time he lifted and...

reset the toilet using 2 wax rings and 1 pair of toilet bolts.  He collected the $100.00 deductible which is what the customer owed through his warranty. Then the customer contacted us again and was serviced on May 11, 2015 again lifted and reset toilet using 1 wax ring and 1 set of toilet bolts, the service was past his 180 day recall so there was another charge of $100.00 due at the time of service.  The tech was the same tech that was at the home the 1st time so he wouldn't have questioned his own work.  The 3rd time  we were getting paid by the home warranty company the customer had no deductible to be paid, the toilet was tightened down, after speaking to the owner and master plumber of the company you cannot break the flange by tightening of the toilet. His warranty contract states that he has a deductible of $100.00 per visit  if the warranty felt that is was not due they would have waived the deductible and a recall has to be within the 180 days of service.  We feel that a refund of neither of the $100.00 deductibles is warranted, if the toilet had continued to leak after the 1st visit the customer would have had a problem with the ceiling in the room below, which he does not state that, and why would he have waited over 8 month to call the home warranty again for the 2nd visit.  The flange issue is a separate issue and is not related to either service call.Thank you,D.R. Sevacko Plumbing and Heating Inc.

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.Below is my response back to Sevacko, D R Plumbing & Heating on complaint ID [redacted]I received Sevacko, D R Plumbing & Heating response to my claim by from the Revdex.com.  About the only thing the business got correct in their response is the dates.  They claim Ray was the tech that came for the 1st and 2nd visit.  No.  Ray came for the 1st visit and Ray came for the 3rd visit, but the 2nd visit was a different crew.  I was here for all three visits, I know who walked into my house. Ray is older, gray hair, has a mustache, and wore typical blue buttoned up work shirt from the company.  With him on the first visit was younger black male.  The second visit was a guy in his thirties, black hair, average height , and had on white T-Shirt with graphic print and not the company shirt.  His helper that was younger, skinny, tall, with blond/brown hair.  I did not see Ray's helper on the 3rd visit because he never got out of the truck as Ray was in my house for 5 mins.  Now why would I know all this if Ray was the only guy who came all three times? Now the business states that in the 1st visit they used 2 wax rings to reset the toilet, then on 2nd visit used 1 wax ring and reset toilet, and finally on 3rd visit they tightened down the bolts on the toilet.  Their description of the 1st and 3rd visit are correct, but they are completely wrong on 2nd visit once again.  The crew, after seeing the double wax rings and questioning it, stated they were going to go "old school".  They used two jars of plumbers putty.  I was concerned about this and asked about use the plumbers putty, they stated that was how it use to be done but the advent of wax rings make the process quicker and easier than having to form and ring with plumbers putty.  I even did a web search on using plumbers putty to set a toilet to see if that was correct after they left.  Now if on the 2nd visit, why would I have so much knowledge of plumbers putty and how it was the old way of sealing a toilet if they used wax rings as they claim?  I am not a plumber, because if I was I would not have had to call my warranty company to fix this.  Yes the invoice probably shows wax ring, but that is not what they used. They also stated that leak 1 and leak 2 were not related because I would have had water damage due to the time between leaks 1 and 2.  I never said it leaked the whole time between visits 1 and 2.  After visit one it did stop leaking, but then started up again and I called right away for service as to avoid damage to my ceiling below.The business also states that a flange can not break by tightening of the toilet.  Why?  It is of some unbreakable material?  I saw the flange when the toilet was pulled off twice and it a pvc flange as the pipes are pvc.  What is pvc, it is a plastic.  I do not know about the these master plumbers, but I have seen a lot of plastic items break in my time.  Now I am not plastics expert, but I have heard a lot of plastic crack in my life on this planet and the crack I heard sounded a lot like all the other sounds of plastic breaking.  They tighten down the bolts, and he cranked on the bolts hard as I watched him, and the next time I sat on the toilet I hear crack sound and the toilet become loose, but yet that is not related?  It happened right after!   The business states, by their own account, that they came to my house for a leaky toilet three times.  That means the first time it was not fixed, the second time it was not fixed, and finally the third time their actions caused damage and the toilet is not usable.  The business seems to claim that they did good work and none of these thing are related.  The first leak was not related to the 2nd and now the loose toilet, which happened right after the 3rd visit, is not related to the 3rd visit.  I guess they will admit the 3rd leak is related the the 2nd since it was under warranty, but the other visits are not related.  That makes no sense.  Also I question their work ethic.  The first visit when they were getting paid, they took off the toilet and reset it.  The second visit when they were getting paid, they took off the toilet and reset it.  The third visit which was within 180 days and under warranty, meaning I did not pay them $100, all they did was tighten down the bolts.  I will also guess that for the 3rd visit the home warranty company did not pay them either. Visits 1 and 2 the standard practice was to take off toilet and take a look at it, the 3rd visit the standard practice was to just tighten bolts and be in my house for 5 mins.  All three visits where for leaks, but yet only on the paid visits did they take off the toilet and investigate and did some work.Any reasonable person who would hear that a company comes back three time for the same issue happening at the same location, regardless of warranty policy, would state that the company clearly did not fix the issue the 1st time, or the 2nd time.  The same reasonable person, after hearing that their was crack and that the toilet became lose right after the third visit would clearly come to the conclusion that the tightening of the bolts caused the issue and thus the fault is that of the company.  I am also willing to bet that a judge would also come to the same conclusion.This is clear cut here.  Sevacko, D R Plumbing & Heating came to my house three times to fix a leak to the same toilet in the same location.  They failed to fix the leak the 1st and 2nd time, and after the 3rd time their actions caused damage that rendered the toilet not usable and will cost me probably more than $100 to get fixed.  They can either be a stand up company and make this right, or they can be scam artists and not stand behind their work.  It up to them, but at this point and time just a refund of $100 is not going to cut it considering how much it will cost me to fix this toilet and if they want to we can take this issue to the local Magistrate and see what he has to say about this.[redacted] [redacted]

D.R. Sevacko Plumbing had received the complaint about the red bricks. Per the estimate which is attached it states that the red bricks are an additional cost in order to be put back. We also emailed Ms. Moore and explained that to her. That email is attached to this response.D.R. Sevacko...

Plumbing is more than willing to put the red bricks back at the additional cost per the estimate.

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.Below is my response the company from the letter received 10/14/2015.DR Sevacko can talk all they want about the warranty company but the fact of the matter is that THEY serviced the call for the warranty company.  THEY performed the work and THEY failed to correct the leak the first time and the second time, and I stand behind my statement that their third visit and the tightening of the bolts caused the flange to break.  They can talk all they want about how the toilet would break first and that, but it is what it is, and if they want to come take a look themselves I will allow them.  No one has touched the toilet so it will be easy to take off and see what has happened and to see that there is no wax ring but plumper's putty.They claim I am wrong in that there was not a young black male, but they did not address the fact that Ray was not the plumber on the 2nd visit and that one of their OWN plumbers on the second visit questioned Rays work.Also for the record I was able to get the home warranty company to refund me the deductible for the second visit as I was told by their rep on the phone that it would be covered and thus I would not have to pay for the second visit as it was due to the same issue.  The refund I am asking for from DR Sevacko is the first visit because of their poor work.  Three visits to fix the same problem!  It not like the second visit was because the tank kept running and the third visit was because the supply hose was leaking.  NO!  All three visits where for leaks in the SAME EXACT PLACE.  They failed to fix it the first time, failed to fix it the second time, and I stand behind that they caused damage the third time.This company from my initial complaint did not respond with open arms to help negotiate a compromise or work something out.  No they just said we are done with you and that is that.  To me they do not care about their customers and the work they do.  They came, they got paid, and they are on their way.  Poor customer service.As I stated we can work something out here or we can work something out with the magistrate.  I believe the magistrate is going to cost them a lot more money than what I am asking for, even if they win.  If we can not work something out and I am forced to file a law suite I will get quotes from plumper's and will be suing for the full cost to get the toilet back to working order.[redacted]

Review: I hired this company and they did not finish the job after paying them. The first time they came was 6-16-2016 and problem was not fixed . Leaking pipes and running toilet. Next was 6-22-2016 to correct issues that were not completed in previous visit. I am stuck hiring another plumber. The toilet is still running and the tub is filling up with water when taking a shower.Desired Settlement: I would like a portion of money paid to be refunded. I do not trust this company to finish the job..

Business

Response:

D.R Sevacko Plumbing would like to have the owner/master plumber of the company go out to Ms. Henderson's home to investigate and resolve Ms. Henderson's concerns.

Review: Sevacko DR Plumbing is the contractor hired by my home warranty company to fix a leaking toilet in my house. They first came out in the fall of 2014 to repair the issue and I paid them $100s. The issue was not fixed as in spring of 2015 they came out again to fix the same issue and I had to pay once again $100 as the contract stated 180 workmanship warranty. The second crew questioned the first crews work and even asked me who did as they felt it was not done right. The leak still continued and on the third time coming out they where under the workmanship warranty and from their attitude it seemed like they did not really care about fixing it just more going through the motions since they where not getting paid this time. Only tools they brought in the house where a wrench and a light. The worker said the toilet felt lose and that he was going to tighten it down. I found that strange because it was not lose and I know if you tighten the bolts down too much to risk breaking the toilet or the flange. Well he tightened it down and said you should be all good and left. Two days later used the toilet and heard a large crack. The PVC flange has broken. Obviously the worker put too much pressure on the flange by over tightening the bolts and the flange snapped. Now the toilet is very lose and not a small issue has turned into a very large problem.Desired Settlement: I am requesting a refund of the $200 I have paid to Sevacko DR Plumbing, not that $200 will fix the problem they have not caused. I refuse to have them back in my house as they already been there three times failing to fix the original problem and only causing another problem that I have to deal with.

Business

Response:

The first visit to the [redacted] home was not in the fall of 2014 the actual date was between August 15-18 2014, his home warranty company was billed n the 18th of August. The tech that was there was Ray a member of the Sevacko family, the owners older brother, at that time he lifted and reset the toilet using 2 wax rings and 1 pair of toilet bolts. He collected the $100.00 deductible which is what the customer owed through his warranty. Then the customer contacted us again and was serviced on May 11, 2015 again lifted and reset toilet using 1 wax ring and 1 set of toilet bolts, the service was past his 180 day recall so there was another charge of $100.00 due at the time of service. The tech was the same tech that was at the home the 1st time so he wouldn't have questioned his own work. The 3rd time we were getting paid by the home warranty company the customer had no deductible to be paid, the toilet was tightened down, after speaking to the owner and master plumber of the company you cannot break the flange by tightening of the toilet. His warranty contract states that he has a deductible of $100.00 per visit if the warranty felt that is was not due they would have waived the deductible and a recall has to be within the 180 days of service. We feel that a refund of neither of the $100.00 deductibles is warranted, if the toilet had continued to leak after the 1st visit the customer would have had a problem with the ceiling in the room below, which he does not state that, and why would he have waited over 8 month to call the home warranty again for the 2nd visit. The flange issue is a separate issue and is not related to either service call.