Sewer Services, Inc

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/12) */
Re: Case #[redacted]
Dear Sir/Madam:
[redacted] hired Bob Freiermuth Sanitation ("BFS") to do a compliance inspection on the septic system of a home he owns in Rosemount, MN. The reason he needed to have the inspection done was so he...

could sell this home/property.
Dakota County requires that a compliance inspection and water test be completed before the sale of a home or property.
The compliance inspection has a number of questions on the form that need to be answered in order to pass the inspection, or to be compliant. After our inspection, we were unable to answer all of the questions as required. Most importantly, we were unable to locate the drainfield, which needs to be verified that it is protecting the ground water. Mr. [redacted] stated that pipes were up to inspect the drainfield, , but this information was not true. Because, upon inspection by BFS, no pipes were up to inspect the drainfield. We then probed for the drainfield and was still unable to locate. We did soil borings and determined wet model soil at 28" deep, which deems the system non-compliant, irregardless of drainfield location. Our responsibility is to inspect the drainfield, not to locate it, which is the owner's responsibility.
I called Mr. [redacted] and explained what the situation was and told him that we would have to fail the system because of the soil findings and that we could not find or inspect the drainfield. I told him he would have to dig it up to find the drainfield and then we could inspect it. Mr. [redacted] said he would think about it and call us back, which he never did.
I sent him a bill for our services a week after I spoke with Mr. [redacted]. We received one-half ($175) of the payment with a note stating that he was only going to pay half because we only did half of the job. We attempted to contact Mr. [redacted] many times by phone and left messages for him to return our calls. We finally made contact and responded that we did the compliance inspection according to the MPCA Rules and Form that was required, and that we are to inspect what is there for us to see, so we did complete the job. We again requested payment of the remainder of the bill or we would file a lien on the property.
While we were waiting for Mr. [redacted]'s response, we called the City of Rosemount to inquire about Mr. [redacted] and that we would send the compliance report to them as required by the Code. They informed us that we were the third party that inspected Mr. [redacted]'s property and that the first two parties failed the system also. We also contacted the first two parties that he contacted for inspection and they told us that they could not locate the drainfield either and regardless, the system was non-compliant.
In my opinion, Mr. [redacted] was trying to find someone to inspect and pass his septic system so that he could sell the property (to the renters) and leave the new owners unknowingly with a non-compliant system. which they then would be responsible for the cost of repair or replacement of the system to bring it into compliance, not Mr. [redacted] himself.
I am also aware that he is having a new system installed by one of the first two parties who had failed his system in the beginning. Knowing the above information, I believe Mr. [redacted] was the party in error, and believe his complaint against BFS is unjustified and should be removed.
Sincerely,
Bob Freiermuth Sanitation LLC
[redacted]original document attached.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
To whom it may concern,
When I spoke to to [redacted] on the first phone call I specifically told him that there was NOT drain field pipes sticking up. I told him the only pipe that was sticking up was to access the tank itself and NO drain field pipes were present. He obviously doesn't hear very well; he didn't even get my name right(as evidenced by the bill attached).
The phone call that I received from him on the day of the inspection, there was no mention that he had done any soil borings/samples. All he said was he couldn't find the drain field and that he would have to fail the system.
As I had stated [redacted] was a second opinion on a previous failed compliance test. When he says he was the third person to do the test that is incorrect. He was the second one to do the test and since I believed he did not do it correctly I had a third company do it. By the time he called the city I had had the third test already completed.
[redacted] did attempt to contact me many times but only left one message all those times that he tried to call. There was no messages.
[redacted] assessment that I was trying to pass off a shoddy septic system is false. Like I have stated before I was wanting a second opinion on a previously failed septic test to make sure that I wasn't going to have to shell out thousands of dollars needlessly in case the first test was incorrect.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/07/06) */
Re: Case #[redacted]
Dear Sir/Madam:
Customer [redacted] hired Bob Freiermuth Sanitation ("BFS") to do a compliance inspection on the septic system of a home he owns in Rosemount, MN.
We completed the job, like previous contractors did. The question arises "has Mr. [redacted] filed complaints about other contractors that completed the same inspection?".
As a business, we expect to be paid for the job, whether the inspection fails or passes.
BFS stands by our previous statements and decisions and requests removal of the above complaint.
Sincerely,
Bob Freiermuth Sanitation LLC
By
Bob Freiermuth