South Side Plumbing & Heating Co Inc

On October 30, 2014 South Side Plumbing and Heating received written notification from your office
informing us of a recent complaint filed by a customer. Please accept the following as our formal reply.
On, or about October 15, 2014 a service technician arrived to Mr. [redacted]s residence at...

[redacted] The technician was advised by the owner of “clicking” sounds originating from the
furnace while in operation. The technician observed the existing mercury bulb flame sensor was faulty
and required replacement. An inquiry was made to a local vendor regarding cost and availability, when
the technician approached Mr. [redacted] with costs Mr. [redacted] insisted he could purchase the
component on line for $110.00 at which point no further effort was put forth in obtaining repair
components, or providing follow up service. Furthermore, the technician did visually identify, and
observe several “owner repairs” to the electrical wiring harness which included safety features using
wire not recognized as Authorized OEM Replacement components. There were also several existing
wires within the furnace that still showed signs of melted insulation indicating excessive heat was
present at some point. It was also noted the customer field modified the spark box from its factory
location within the burner assembly area, to the blower assembly area. With the vast amount of
previous repairs that were made by others is making tracing electrical problems with a voltage meter
difficult to impossible.
On, or about October 20, 2014 Mr. [redacted] called our office to inquire on the status of repair parts
ordered, he was informed no parts were ordered based on his ability to purchase online at a lesser cost,
Mr. [redacted] then provided verbal authorization for the Flame Sensor to be purchased by us and that he
would be contacted upon availability of same.
On, or about October 23, 2014 a second technician was sent to Mr. [redacted]’s residence to install the
newly purchased Flame Sensor where upon he installed said sensorto the existing pilot tubing, as many
would. At that time the furnace was attempted to be activated when it was observed by the technician
the unit also had a faulty spark control preventing ignition. Again, it was observed and documented the
furnace “appeared to be miswired” and “may be unsafe” and a recommendation to obtain a wiring
schematic was forwarded to Mr. [redacted] who also proclaimed he had infact performed previous wiring
work to the furnace in addition to attempting repairs to the flame sensor wiring by means of splicing
wires with a crimp connection, and that the unit had been working satisfactorily since the time of his
repairs. The recommendation was made to ensure that the alleged re-wiring was done correctly and
that nothing was overlooked, which may, or may not have had an impact on the previously mentioned
spark control not igniting the burner assembly. The furnace was left off as a safety precaution for Mr.
[redacted]. A recommendation was also verbally conveyed, and documented that Mr. [redacted] consider
updating the furnace due to its age (approx. 30 years if not older).
The following day October 24, 2014, a phone message was left at Mr. [redacted]’s residence to discuss
replacement options, as well as informing him that the manufacturer could not provide a technical
manual illustrating the electrical wiring due to the units age, and that without said manual we were no
longer willing to service his unit for liability and safety reasons. Finally on October 28, 2014 Mr. [redacted]
phoned to reveal his lack of confidence in our service technician’s abilities in correctly diagnosing his
furnace issues, and by not providing him the service he was seeking. Mr. [redacted] continued to badger
and belittle the technician’s abilities and experience, which combined total at least 45 years.
Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] could not understand the unit was left off for his safety, as was the
recommendation of replacement. Finally, a verbal agreement was made to return to his residence on
Friday October 31, 2014 to replace the pilot tubing at no cost to Mr. [redacted].
In closing, contrary to Mr. [redacted]’s belief, South Side Plumbing and Heating does not charge $120.00
per hour for one heating technician, his accusation that we do is not factual. Also, Mr. [redacted] obviously
filed his complaint shortly after scheduling the October 3l~ service visit. As for Mr. [redacted]’s claims of
requesting service from others and paying for said service South Side Plumbing and Heating requests a
copy of the invoice clearly stating company name, state license number, diagnosis, and cost of repairs
for further consideration. To date Mr. [redacted] has not been billed, nor has any fee associated with our
two trips been collected, therefore his claims of charges of $600.00 are false.
We believe this correspondence shall suffice.
South Side Plumbing and Heating, Inc.

Review: On Monday, May 16 my first and second floor tenants notified me of water leaking through each of their bathrooms in my triplex (bathrooms are stacked in all three Units). My third unit tenants later confirmed to have a leaking tub faucet with water rolling back towards the tub surround. I also received a photo of water damage on the bathroom wall of the second unit (e.g. from Unit 3) around this time.

On Tuesday, May 17 I scheduled a plumber to address leaking third floor tub faucet, reported by third floor tenants, on Thursday (5/19) afternoon. I provided keys to all three units so the plumber would have access to the entire property. After the work was generically reported as complete via voicemail from the plumber, I followed up with the third unit tenant to find out the leaking tub faucet was not addressed. I called back the company but after hours support passed me to an emergency on-call plumber who promptly informed me that his support constituted an "Emergency" trip to my property and would result in a minimum fee (my recollection is either $100 or $200).

In frustration, I elected to handle the now urgent leaking faucet issue with a plumber friend (cash transaction) after I visited the third unit to witness the visibly leaking faucet. With channel lock pliers I was able to slow the leak from flowing water to a steady drip. If the plumber had truly entered Unit 3, I have no doubt that he would have noticed the leaking faucet just as I had.

I received my invoice in early June detailing all of the work performed in UNIT 2 (not Unit 3) of my property - replaced cracked caulking and replaced wax ring. The Job description on the Invoice conflicts with the write-up. The invoice Job description states: (my Property Address) #3.

I followed up with the company and explained to a manager that work was not performed on Unit 3 and that the work reported on the invoice only references Unit 2. I then went on to explain that I decided to call another plumber to resolve the problem before it escalated. I was assured that work was performed as requested and that the issue must have been a clerical error in the invoice write-up despite my protest. I was told that I would receive a follow up call after the manager had a chance to speak to the technician. I never received a call back.

In early August I received a payment request for services rendered. I re-explained my issue with the invoice write-up of work on Unit 2 not matching my initial issue description. Again, the CORRECT Unit number (3) is listed on the invoice but the write-up speaks to work in Unit 2. I then re-explained my decision to pursue a different remediation option (plumber friend – cash) only to be conveniently informed that I would need to provide the plumber license number and receipt proving payment (which he knew I wouldn’t be able to do). I was told that I could be lying about the repair performed to avoid paying the invoice. I was also told I should have given the company additional time to remediate the situation.

Bottom line: Someone made a mistake and “fixed” something in Unit 2 when I explicitly stated that Unit 3 had the issue. This is later confirmed with the Unit 3 reference in the invoice title with the “repairs” reported in Unit 2. I attempted to remediate the situation by calling the company but an additional afterhours “fee” and disagreement of the initial work performed drove me to pursue corrective action on my own. Now, “with all due respect”, I’m told I could be lying about the initial issue and subsequent corrective action as a means to avoid payment.Desired Settlement: Please terminate my invoice.

Business

Response:

September 8, 2016 Revdex.com 400 Holiday Drive Pittsburgh, Pa. 15220 Re: Complaint # [redacted] To whom it may Concern, Please accept this correspondence as South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc's., response to the complaint filed by [redacted] On, or about May 17, 2016 South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., received a phone call from Mr. [redacted] requesting plumbing service at 307 Amabell Street based on 1st floor tenant allegations of water leaking through the ceiling of their apartment presumably from apartment # 3, an appointment was scheduled for Thursday May 19, 2016. Arrived as scheduled to initially observe 1st floor ceiling for damage, relocated to the 2nd floor bathroom for continued diagnostics where upon the technician observed water accumulating around the base of toilet. The toilet in question was drained and lifted in order to examine the wax ring seal and associated connecting drain flange for condition observing the wax sealing ring was in fact deteriorated and most likely the immediate cause of the observed leak in the 1st floor ceiling. The toilet was then reset utilizing a new wax sealing ring and securing bolts then activated numerous times to confirm leak free operation. While in this 2nd floor location a examination of the bathtub was performed, observing the drain and water piping serving same with leak free conditions. Our technician again relocated to the 3rd floor bathroom for an examination of plumbing fixtures activating the toilet several times observing leak free operation. The lavatory was also activated confirming leak free operation. With access through the kitchen base cabinet lazy susan the bathtub faucet body, hot and cold water piping, and associated drain piping were examined observing a newer waste and overflow assembly installed with all piping examined in leak free conditions. With the piping examined the technician then began to spray and splash water onto the bathing compartments surround walls to determine if leaks were present at any of the caulking joints, seams, tile grout lines, or otherwise, leaks were immediately observed at a section of deteriorated caulking along the bathtub wet wall leaking onto the tiled floor as indicated on our invoice. The failed caulking was removed with new caulking applied, thus completing our scheduled work as directed by the owner. According to Mr. [redacted] the immediate issue was overlooked during the initial service visit, which being a leaking shower faucet within the 3rd floor bathroom as he was informed by his tenant Mr. [redacted] also claims he arrived later that evening and was able to slow the alleged leak on his own with a pair of channel lock pliers, a leak of this nature could not have been overlooked as Mr. [redacted] claims. Furthermore this would not be identified as a leak per say, and would be considered as a dripping, or running faucet that would be in need of its internals repaired or replaced. As Mr. [redacted] clearly states, and as previously noted Mr. [redacted] was able to slow the leak on his own with a pair of channel lock pliers thus containing said alleged leak within the bathing compartment with the water from said leak exiting the compartment through the drainage system previously examined and determined leak free. Mr. [redacted] did contact our Emergency after hour's service line as he states at approximately 5:55 pm on May 19, 2016 which was 1 hour and 55 minutes after the service call was completed, and as our records support. However, our record of the call placed to our Emergency Answering Service indicates Mr. [redacted] was calling to determine if the work had been completed and did not indicate there that there were currently active leaks present (see attached answering service report). As for his claims of being informed it would cost either $100.00 to $200.00 in order to respond to his request for after hours service is unsupported as our "Emergency Rates" don't fall into Mr. Barrett's recollection. Furthermore, had Mr. [redacted] correctly identified the severe nature of the call as an active leak from work recently performed, the "On Call Technician" would have contacted the Manager on Duty detailing the conversation and arrived to Mr. [redacted]'s rental property at no additional cost as the previous work would have been considered "under warranty" provided the leak in question was actually present during our previous work. When Mr. [redacted]'s account became 60 days delinquent a reminder was mailed to his address, on August 18, 2016 Mr. [redacted] contacted our office disputing the charges, disputing the diagnosis, and overall disputing SSPHI's integrity. Mr. [redacted] further explained he was forced to contact another Plumbing Contractor to correctly repair the alleged faucet drip; the contractor in question was a friend. Mr. [redacted] was asked to provide an invoice on the Companies letterhead describing what was observed as the immediate problem, and what was done to remedy said problem, including the cost of repairs. In doing so, South Side Plumbing would have a formal record of the repairs allegedly performed by others thus permitting South Side Plumbing to make a professional decision on how the concern should be addressed, if a reduction to the invoice should be made, and if any customer accommodations should be considered. Without the requested repair documentation Mr. [redacted]'s claims cannot be taken into consideration as this was conveyed to him in detail, nor was he ever considered, or referred to as "lying" as he mentions in his complaint. Mr. [redacted]'s frustration also stems from a noted clerical error on his invoice, which SSPH1 apologized for. As he mentions Invoice #[redacted] dated June 3, 2016 does in fact state under the job heading [redacted] Street # 3, and does in fact fail to reference the unit correctly within the actual work description contained within same, instead the unit is referenced as the 2nd floor inlieu of 3rd floor thus our clerical error. However, if the afore referenced description of work, and location of work meet the criteria fora 3rd floor, or apartment # 3 location then said description should suffice as evidence the correct unit was accessed which will put to rest any current, or further allegations the unit was not accessed. We feel by identifying "the lazy susan" kitchen cabinet access to the bathtub in question should be considered as a critical reference point to verify the unit was correctly identified, examined, and addressed professionally, as well as correctly. in closing, South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., prides ourselves in quality customer service and attempts to accommodate our customer base in any means possible when unfortunate situations arise as we attempted to do in this instance with Mr. [redacted]. As previously stated Mr. [redacted] could not provide the requested documentation to support his allegations thus no additional consideration could be given to this matter. Regardless of Mr. [redacted]'s claims, South Side Plumbing did provide a service as requested making repairs to an actively observed leak under the toilet within the 2nd floor apartment which was the direct cause of the leak within the 1st floor apartment, for this we expect payment for services rendered. If additional problems were observed by Mr. [redacted] after our visit, and said problems were not contributing factors to the original problem Mr. [redacted] would have been financially liable for any additional repairs required. South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., feels our representation of events in this matter shall suffice your needs as a rebuttal to Mr. [redacted]'s allegations, tf we can be of additional support or assistance please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, South Side Plumbing and Heating, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

Review: Southside came out on 2/10/15 and did some work. The main problem was that we heard dripping in the livingroom after flushing the toilette on the second floor. The repair man did his work and then flushed the toilette and we know longer heard the noise. He had flushed it multiple times. Then no one went to the bathroom for hours and later that evening after flushing we heard the noise again. The next day my husband called and explained what happened and they said they would get someone out later that day. My husband asked if there was a charge and the lady said no. Just today I get a bill for $80.00. She said there wasn't a charge to come out but because there was no water actually dripping and it appeared to be expansion from the pipes we were then charged. I just personally think the lady should of explained better what could happen. My husband asked if there was a charge and she said no. She didn't go into detail and being that they were just there the day before she should of explained what could happen in greater detail if they didn't find a problem. I think it was misleading and silly. People just don't have money floating around. I will not return to Southside ever again. Previous to this I was happy but this was dirty and the lady was nasty on the phone.Desired Settlement: Just to remove the balance

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern; Please accept this correspondence as South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc's., response to the complaint filed by [redacted]: On, or about February 10, 2015 SSPH! arrived to the [redacted] residence to perform routine repair work to the 2nd floor toilet after complaints were received of water leaking into the ceiling below. It was determined the wax ring sealing the toilet to the flange was deteriorated then was replaced, in addition the fill valve to same was not working correctly and it was also replaced. After the work was completed, the Service Technician left the residence in route to another job when the customer called with concerns she heard water running in the toilet tank, immediately the Technician was dispatched back to the [redacted] residence where he found a faulty fill valve. The valve was replaced with another and the customer was not charged for the return visit as we determined faulty material was to blame, which is also indicated on the customers invoice. On, or about February 11, 2015 Mrs. [redacted] again called with additional concerns of hearing the sounds of water dripping into the ceiling from the bathroom above. The call was scheduled for the same day and was treated as a potential "call back" requiring immediate attention. Once the Technician arrived a series of diagnostics were performed ruling out any additional leaks from work recently performed the day earlier. The sounds heard by the residents were expansion and contraction of the domestic hot water piping and drain contained within the floor joists of the bathroom above. At that point the visit was no longer considered a "call back" due to finding no leaks related to our work; regretfully for the customer hourly rates were applicable for the services rendered as well as the trip fee being waived, also the invoice was reduced from 1.5 hours to 1.0 with attempts to accommodate their needs. SSPHI, will warrant any product installed for a period of (1) one year, or honor the manufacturer's warranty whichever may be greater, as well as provide a (1) one year warranty on Craftsmanship which includes leaks. SSPHI believes this correspondence adheres to the guidelines of the Revdex.com, and the needs of the customer.Respectfully Submitted,[redacted]PresidentSouth Side Plumbing and Heating, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

I don't agree with what the owner wrote. On top of not feeling I should be charged the $80.00 now a whole new problem came to light. I originally heard drips in the ceiling after flushing my second floor toilette. We were told on the 2/11/2015 is was due to expansion. On the 10th they installed a new [redacted] and replaced a wax ring. I paid for that work. I now feel as though they misdiagnosed the problem because if they realized it was expansion the first time they wouldn't even had to replace those parts. The first guy never even thought or mentioned expansion. On 9/9/2014 I had work done on the toilette and back then they replaced the [redacted] also. This is now the 3rd one they put in but only charged for 2. Well after all the work was done on the 10th we still heard the drips and contacted Southside the next day. They said they would send someone out and my husband asked if there was a charge and the lady said no. My husband also asked the worker if there was a charge for today and he also said no. Two people both have said there was no charge. After reading the comments from the owner I think work was done which didn't have to be done and I was charged twice for it and I don't agree with this.

Business

Response:

Re: [redacted] ID# [redacted] -2na Reply To whom it may concern; Please accept this correspondence as South side Plumbing and Heating Inc's., 2nd response to the complaint filed by [redacted]. As previously expressed in our 1st response the reason for the initial visit as related to us by the customer was as follows: 2nd Floor Toilet leaking • Basement Toilet Leaking Both areas of concern were correctly identified as actively leaking then addressed on a repair perspective by Southside Plumbing and Heating, Inc. on February 10, 2015. Also as stated, we returned the same day to replace a fill valve that was determined to be faulty, (said valve was installed earlier the same day) with no additional charge to the customer, as was reflected on their March 2, 2015 invoice. On, or about February 11, 2015 Mrs. [redacted] called with continued complaints of hearing water dripping into the ceiling directly below the toilet serviced the day before. A work order was created and a Service Technician arrived the same day at approximately 1:00 p.m. to find no visual sign of water leaking within any of the areas serviced earlier, or in close proximity to same. Had the nature of our visit on February 11, 2015 been directly related to defects in craftsmanship, or defective material there would have been no associated charge. Unfortunately that was not the case and the customer is responsible for payment of services rendered. As for the claims of the customer being told there would be no charge Is false, South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., never commits to liability until first Identifying the problem, which is how it was conveyed to the customer. In closing, South Side Plumbing and Heating Inc., believes the customer's Immediate concerns of multiple active water leaks during our February-10, 2015 visit were competently and professionally diagnosed then repaired, preventing further damage to the customer's residence and belongings.Also, as previously mentioned in our 1st reply, the standard fee of $ [redacted].00 for our February 11, 2015 return trip was reduced to $ [redacted] with attempts to accommodate their needs by waiving the $[redacted] trip fee. With continued attempts to find resolution regarding this matter, South Side Plumbing and Heating, Inc., Is again prepared to offer a $[redacted] credit thus reducing the debt to $[redacted],South Side Plumbing and Heating, inc., acknowledges the customers concerns, and believes our services and costs are justified.

Review: I was told to order a utility tub and I did and requested the old concrete one be removed. They sent one guy out, he looked said oh I have to remove it and looked at the new one and told me I'd be better changing it out. When he went to the truck to write a bill for just walking in the house for 5 minutes with no tools or clipboard he pulled the dopr [redacted] out. When I called to discuss the issue south side plumbing said it sounded as if it were already broke, but would launch an investigative action for foul play or tampering. I told him that I regret the implications that I broke it and set it up for them to come out touch it, break it andpay to fix it. They were of no help either for what I called or about the issue of their employee damaging my propertyDesired Settlement: Pay for the locksmith to make the repair, refund my $40 service call charge. If I hadn't been treated so insultingly I wouldn't be making such an issue of this.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com[redacted] in response to complaint number #[redacted].Upon the technician arriving onsite and accessing the work to be completed, the technician phoned into the office, I N. Jake K[redacted] the manager on duty took the cal! from the onsite technician and this is a statement on the events that occurred.The technician forwarded me photos of the existing cement utility sink with a standard top mount utility faucet and the new commercial stainless steel kitchen sink the customer had purchased and provided(I attached these pictures for your reference). Upon observing the pictures I had noticed the customer supplied sink was not the correct sink for the application. This sink required a rear deck mount faucet and the existing waterlines re-roughed. I explained to the technician that he [redacted]ds to talk to the customer and explain we can install the sink he had provided but we will [redacted]d to get a special faucet and re-rough the existing waterlines which may be expensive. Or as another option the customer can purchase a standard fiberglass utility sink and we can install a standard top mount faucet to retain the existing rough of the waterlines to save cost. At this time I also advised the technician to charge the customer a $40.00 trip fee. South Side Plumbing & Heating labor rates for this type of service are $80.00/hr service charge one hour minimum, plus materials and a onetime $40.00 trip fee. The customer could have incurred a $120.00 charge for this visit. Due to work history with this particular customer and in good faith I waived the $80.00 service charge.Approximately 10 minutes after the previous conversation with the technician he phoned back in again to be dispatched to his next job. He also disclosed at this time upon closing the door to leave the customers house the door knob fell off in his hand.Immediately after hanging the phone up from the technician, the business line rang, I answered the phone as normal to a partially annoyed Mr. [redacted]. He began to explain that South Side Plumbing & Heating came unprepared for his job and he was charged $40.00 for nothing. I quickly explained to Mr. [redacted] that I was the manager that spoke to the onsite technician, I restated our recommendations to Mr. [redacted] and explained they were based solely to save him expense. Mr. [redacted] understood and agreed with the assessment. Mr. [redacted] continued with the conversation explaining that upon our technician leaving he broke his door handle. I then asked Mr. [redacted] how the technician broke the door handle. Mr. [redacted] irately explained he closed the door and broke the handle. Coming from a mechanical background I understand the mechanics of a door handle. I attempted to ask if the door handle was broken before and how old the door handle was. Immediately upon me asking if the door handle was broken prior I was interrupted by an outraged, cursing Mr. [redacted]. At this point with Mr. [redacted] screaming I hung up the phone. Approximately 1 minute later Mr. [redacted] called back and upon him identifying himself I explained that I will not be subjected to vulgar language and screaming, if he would like to have a conversation I will gladly continue. At this point Mr. [redacted] apologized. After accepting his apology I continued by explaining I will look into this matter with the technician and attempt to verify if there was foul play or tampering outside of normal operations of a door handle by the technician. Before I could finish my statement I was interrupted by Mr. [redacted] rudely telling me to forget about everything and he hung up on me.Settlement Response:There will be no refund of the justified $40.00 trip fee. I would have considered of working with Mr. [redacted]. After the conversation and the disrespect, I am not entertaining any thoughts of incurring any fees from the locksmith.N. Jake K[redacted]

Review: The first guy from Southside Plumbing they sent out seemed to know what he was doing, but when my part came in, and the second guy came out - he first told me that he was told he just needed to replace the part. I informed him that I needed the gas line for the pilot line replaced and the igniter checked out, he informed me he had no paperwork from the initial service call. He cut the old tubing, that was leaking, and used it to make a shoddy line connection to the pilot and igniter, dumb me I assumed they would use a new piece of tubing. Then he had me come down and look to see that he was getting any kind of spark from the furnace or any kind of gas, and without the wiring diagram he couldn't figure out what the 24v line was, thought that was strange I can use a volt meter, but I don't get paid $120 an hour either. He told me he would have to go back to the shop, and they would be in touch. I waited several days and contacted them, they informed me that they technician says I need to buy a new furnace because mine is almost 30 years old. I was shocked, because the furnace had worked perfectly last winter and on the initial service call told everything looked good. So I went down turned on the power and the gas and set the thermostat, it lighted up perfectly and worked just like it always had. Then I assumed that maybe this technician didn't turn on the power or the gas when he showed me nothing was working, I told him when he came in they were both off and showed him how to turn them on. I was very angry at this point, because they were obviously trying to sell me a new furnace, so I called them back told them it was working fine and didn't appreciate the fact that the technician was obviously not aware how to work on a furnace or was trying to mislead me. I told them I still expected the pilot light gas line to be replaced properly, and the igniter still needed to be adjusted or replaced - they told me a technician would be in touch with me. I finally got in touch with the gentleman returning my call, I guess the owner, he asked me if I was certified to work on furnaces, I told him no, he said that means I dont know anything then and have no right to tell them how to do their job! He told me that he hires only the best technicians, I inquired how come he can't use a volt meter, or figure out how to turn the gas valve on. He told me that since they cant find a wiring diagram for my furnace, the manufacturer doesn't offer them anymore, and therefore it is unsafe to use and he will not guarantee any of the work done on it. He would replace the pilot gas line tubing on his dime, but any other work would be priced heavily and without any guarantee of my safety. That is what I call good customer service, you get caught trying to take advantage of someone, then belittle them for questioning it and threaten their safety. On the initial service call the technician checked all of the burners and the heat exchanger, he informed me that everything was in good working order, I only needed to replace the flame sensor and fix the leaking pilot line, and would have to wait and see if the igniter needed replacing or adjusting - then I went to an unsafe system with no guarantee of any work done on it, and all this for $600 - what a bargain?Desired Settlement: I had to call another Furnace company to come finish fixing the furnace, and replace the shoddy gas line replacement they installed. I will pay for the parts, though extremely overpriced (found online for $80 less), I was never presented any kind of invoice on any of the work done so far, just charged on a credit card. I at least request to get the service call cost back, since I have to pay it again for another company to look at my furnace and repair it.

Business

Response:

On October 30, 2014 South Side Plumbing and Heating received written notification from your office

informing us of a recent complaint filed by a customer. Please accept the following as our formal reply.

On, or about October 15, 2014 a service technician arrived to Mr. [redacted]s residence at [redacted] The technician was advised by the owner of “clicking” sounds originating from the

furnace while in operation. The technician observed the existing mercury bulb flame sensor was faulty

and required replacement. An inquiry was made to a local vendor regarding cost and availability, when

the technician approached Mr. [redacted] with costs Mr. [redacted] insisted he could purchase the

component on line for $110.00 at which point no further effort was put forth in obtaining repair

components, or providing follow up service. Furthermore, the technician did visually identify, and

observe several “owner repairs” to the electrical wiring harness which included safety features using

wire not recognized as Authorized OEM Replacement components. There were also several existing

wires within the furnace that still showed signs of melted insulation indicating excessive heat was

present at some point. It was also noted the customer field modified the spark box from its factory

location within the burner assembly area, to the blower assembly area. With the vast amount of

previous repairs that were made by others is making tracing electrical problems with a voltage meter

difficult to impossible.

On, or about October 20, 2014 Mr. [redacted] called our office to inquire on the status of repair parts

ordered, he was informed no parts were ordered based on his ability to purchase online at a lesser cost,

Mr. [redacted] then provided verbal authorization for the Flame Sensor to be purchased by us and that he

would be contacted upon availability of same.

On, or about October 23, 2014 a second technician was sent to Mr. [redacted]’s residence to install the

newly purchased Flame Sensor where upon he installed said sensorto the existing pilot tubing, as many

would. At that time the furnace was attempted to be activated when it was observed by the technician

the unit also had a faulty spark control preventing ignition. Again, it was observed and documented the

furnace “appeared to be miswired” and “may be unsafe” and a recommendation to obtain a wiring

schematic was forwarded to Mr. [redacted] who also proclaimed he had infact performed previous wiring

work to the furnace in addition to attempting repairs to the flame sensor wiring by means of splicing

wires with a crimp connection, and that the unit had been working satisfactorily since the time of his

repairs. The recommendation was made to ensure that the alleged re-wiring was done correctly and

that nothing was overlooked, which may, or may not have had an impact on the previously mentioned

spark control not igniting the burner assembly. The furnace was left off as a safety precaution for Mr.

[redacted]. A recommendation was also verbally conveyed, and documented that Mr. [redacted] consider

updating the furnace due to its age (approx. 30 years if not older).

The following day October 24, 2014, a phone message was left at Mr. [redacted]’s residence to discuss

replacement options, as well as informing him that the manufacturer could not provide a technical

manual illustrating the electrical wiring due to the units age, and that without said manual we were no

longer willing to service his unit for liability and safety reasons. Finally on October 28, 2014 Mr. [redacted]

phoned to reveal his lack of confidence in our service technician’s abilities in correctly diagnosing his

furnace issues, and by not providing him the service he was seeking. Mr. [redacted] continued to badger

and belittle the technician’s abilities and experience, which combined total at least 45 years.

Furthermore, Mr. [redacted] could not understand the unit was left off for his safety, as was the

recommendation of replacement. Finally, a verbal agreement was made to return to his residence on

Friday October 31, 2014 to replace the pilot tubing at no cost to Mr. [redacted].

In closing, contrary to Mr. [redacted]’s belief, South Side Plumbing and Heating does not charge $120.00

per hour for one heating technician, his accusation that we do is not factual. Also, Mr. [redacted] obviously

filed his complaint shortly after scheduling the October 3l~ service visit. As for Mr. [redacted]’s claims of

requesting service from others and paying for said service South Side Plumbing and Heating requests a

copy of the invoice clearly stating company name, state license number, diagnosis, and cost of repairs

for further consideration. To date Mr. [redacted] has not been billed, nor has any fee associated with our

two trips been collected, therefore his claims of charges of $600.00 are false.

We believe this correspondence shall suffice.

South Side Plumbing and Heating, Inc.

Review: I called South Side Plumbing to get a free estimate (as advertised) for some work that we knew had to be done. I spoke with the dispatcher, [redacted], who said that someone would be sent out to our house the following day to take a look. After being let in by a friend, the technician was there for 10 minutes and left the top sheet of his triplicate form that stated his findings. There was a section on the form for a trip charge and a labor charge, both of which were left blank. Since his writing was hard to read, I stopped into the company's office that afternoon and spoke with [redacted] face to face regarding the estimate. He laid out the estimated costs for a couple of options (which exceeded my next lowest estimate from another company by several hundred dollars). Two weeks later, I received a bill for $80. I immediately called and spoke with [redacted], who explained that it was billed as a service call and was not a free estimate. I disputed that claim and asked to speak with [redacted]. I called back the following morning and spoke with [redacted] about the charge. He immediately launched into a long-winded explanation about how they made a service call at my request and claimed that I never made any mention of an estimate. I guaranteed him that I requested an estimate and asked if he records incoming calls for quality assurance proposes. He said he did so I invited him to go back and listen to the tape to find that I asked for an estimate AND he never said anything about a service call or an $80 fee. (I also believe that he lied about the tapes because their automated answering service does not give a disclaimer that calls will be recorded.) I attempted to reason with him for several minutes but he was unwilling to yield, until he finally threatened to take this to the next level and see me at the magistrate. I told him that I would gladly see him there and argue my case. He was unreasonable, patronizing, condescending, and I absolutely believe that he thinks he can take advantage of me because I am a woman.Desired Settlement: I want the $80 bill dismissed. I requested a free estimate AS ADVERTISED on their website and as mentioned on their automated call answering service. Their claim that they billed it as a service call is irrelevant. That's NOT what I requested.

Business

Response:

We are in receipt of Ms. [redacted]'s complaint in regard to our billing for service rendered.

While South Side Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc. does advertise free estimates, we do not do any estimates for repair jobs which are done on a time and material basis. We do in fact inform anyone who requests a free estimate for such a job that it is a time and material matter and no estimate is done. If Ms [redacted] had indeed asked for a free estimate for the job we would have informed her of the same, we just DO NOT do free estimates for repair jobs, the free estimate is for new work, i.e. bathroom or kitchen remodel, AC installation, etc.

Work repair order was to replace damaged flue piping from hot water tank. We did find this flue traveled up into first floor fireplace which did not pass the home inspection done by others. Replacement of this pipe was not an option! We then provided the homeowner with three written options for solution to problem but did not provide prices. Ms. [redacted] did stop by our office and we gave her verbal budgets on all.

We did gain access from her friend [redacted] from [redacted] with whom we often work. As a courtesy, we did not charge Ms. [redacted] a trip charge on this job which would have been $40.00. We did charge for the one hour service call.

The job Ms. [redacted] asked us to do is a repair job as is plain by the charge of $80.00 for the service rendered. No one in our office would have considered, or indicated to Ms. [redacted] that it was a free estimate.

Lastly, when Ms. [redacted] called to complain about receiving a bill and spoke with [redacted], she was very argumentative about the matter and unwilling to listen to any explanations that did not include dismissing our charges. Actually, [redacted] was quite unable to get a word in let alone be "unreasonable, patronizing or condescending". The fact of Ms. [redacted] being a woman has no bearing on her responsibility to pay for the service she received, we expect to be paid for our services and do not consider that we are taking advantage of her to expect payment