|
| Mr. Rooter Plumbing Pittsburgh Mr. Rooter Plumbing and Mr. Rooter Corporation Lied To Me Cranberry, Pennsylvania |
| 18th of Nov, 2012 by User302993 |
***PLEASE NOTE: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION HAS
BEEN ALTERED/REMOVED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CONTACT INFORMATION AND PRIVACY
(FOR THOSE WHO AREN’T KNOWN OR ALREADY IDENTIFIED OPENLY TO THE PUBLIC***
As the homeowner, below is a copy of the formal
complaint I sent via email to the president of Mr. Rooter Corporation, Mary
Kennedy Thompson.
from:
Mary (Homeowner)
reply-to:
Mary (Homeowner)
to:
" Mary, (President of
Mr. Rooter Corporation)
cc:
"Rachel, (The
Homeowner’s Daughter)
date:
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:29 AM
subject:
RE: Mary, The Homeowner’s
Formal Complaint Concerning Mr. Rooter of Pittsburgh
Dear Ms. Thompson,
As per your conversation
with my daughter at approximately 3pm today, I am contacting you to file a
formal complaint against Mr. Rooter of Pittsburgh. Mr. Rooter failed to
recommend and perform appropriate services that would restore flow and prevent
future sewage backups.
Due to a hip replacement,
I was physically unable to oversee the work and asked my daughter to act as my
representative. As my representative, she was witness to all events that
took place with regard to the signed invoices between myself and Mr. Rooter of
Pittsburgh; therefore, what she has reported to me throughout the project
period is a truthful representation of what occurred.
I received your voicemail
while speaking with my daughter extensively about the scheduled
conversation that occurred between you, Stacie, and her. She
explained the conversation in detail to me, which consisted of you asking her
to explain what happened, but she couldn't because you kept talking over her.
I could hear her telling you, multiple times, to please stop doing that.
Finally, she had enough of your interruptions and hung up on you. You
deserved it. You wasted 30 minutes of my daughter's time.
I've been forewarned and
I refuse to subject myself to the same level of disrespect that you showed to
my daughter this afternoon, the one who I asked to represent me and to explain
my position to you. This email is the ONLY communication I will have with
you since it is obvious that you are unable to have a two-way conversation with
another human being.
My daughter told you the
dates, but you were too busy talking over her. Mr. Rooter did NOT perform
work at my residence in March of 2012. March of 2012 was when I asked my
daughter to contact corporate and make our situation known. After
researching Mr. Beall's past resolution efforts (or lack thereof) with
former customers, I thought that contacting corporate headquarters would be
more helpful in the mediation process between myself and Mr. Beall (Owner of
Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Pittsburgh). The last I heard from my daughter,
the situation was supposed to be investigated by Stacie according to a reply
email sent to my daughter by you.
My daughter told me to
wait and see if we heard anything back. We never heard from anyone, which
brings us to the repeated attempts we both have been making in order to get
someone to listen and address the real issues with no success.
I also want to address
why we waited until October to take a stronger stance. It was important
to determine who was actually responsible for solving the problem. It has
been over 9 months since the township cleared my home's lateral sewer line;
thus, the township is the one who solved my problem…NOT Mr. Rooter!
On my behalf, my daughter
will forward the email I asked her to send Mr. Rooter of Pittsburgh on
1-22-2012. I have also taken an extensive amount of time to reiterate the
same situation, essentially, that my daughter communicated on her blog and rip
off report...activities that I support.
On 12-24-2011, Mr. Rooter
was called as permission was given by HSA to get anyone out in order to come
and address the issue of sewage backing up into the basement of my home.
J. T. arrived and informed me that I needed a cleanout installed in order
to permit the large snake to reach the rest of the sewer line. I agreed
to this invoice as I saw this was necessary and relatively reasonable. At
this time, I purchased the "Valued Customer Protection Plan" to
receive discounted pricing on future services. I was, however, unhappy
with the condition of the "new" stack that was installed. The
stack was greasy, filthy, and looked like it was pulled out of someone else's
sewer line. A few minutes after installing the cleanout and into the
drain cleaning process, J.T. claimed that he was unable to get the snake very
far into the line.
He told me that he would
ask his buddy E. M. to come out and camera the line the following morning as a
courtesy. At the time I didn't think about it, but I remember him telling
my daughter and I that he would deny it if we mentioned that he did that.
I thought he was just kidding. That it was a joke.
It is important for you
to realize that the camera inspection, performed on 12-25-2011, and the
diagnosis given of "draining slow" (noted on the invoice) was made
PRIOR to signing any invoice agreeing for work to be done. At no time did
E.M. explain the reason why the line was "draining slow," other than
it was clogged. Also, E.M. claimed that he could not get the camera past
the same point in the sewer line that J.T. claimed that he could not get the
snake past. My daughter and I were under the impression that we had
licensed master plumbers reviewing the situation and believed that their
recommendations would solve the problem.
Prior to signing the
invoice and my rights away under the FTC, my daughter asked E.M. multiple times
if the sewer line replacement he suggested was going to solve the problem and
he assured her that it would. My daughter informed me that after signing
the invoice, E.M. and J.M. got shovels and started digging. She also
stated that they made a statement that concerned her in how they broke the news
to her with regard to what needed to be done to fix the problem. "Be
prepared to sign away your life savings. You need a complete sewer line
replacement."
Upon reviewing the
invoice, there is no display of what the prices were for each service performed
within the contract (camera, hydrojet, replacing approximately 30 feet or less
of the sewer line). If you refer to the first invoice, there are task
numbers possibly indicating that those are the jobs in the price book; however,
nothing like that exists on invoice 105738 written on 12-25-2011.
Everything is lumped together for $10,000. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that I received the membership pricing that I was entitled to according to the
"Valued Customer Protection Plan" as purchased the previous evening.
After signing invoice
105738, my daughter went to check The Township Municipal Authority's website in
order to be sure we were in compliance with their stated processes, especially
after just relocating back to the area from New York. On the website,
they specifically state to CALL THEM FIRST. The township stated that they
will inform the homeowner if they need to contact a plumber. My
daughter and I had never experienced sewer line problems in any home that we
lived in; therefore, we entered into the agreement based on the recommendation
of who we believed were "licensed master plumbers."
E.M. showed up before the
excavation crew on 12-26-2011. My daughter and I explained her findings
on the township's website and expressed our concerns about signing for work
that the township should've been called in to assess FIRST. In response,
E.M. told my daughter and I that township's website was wrong and that we were
supposed to call them first. I was also reminded that my daughter (with
my permission) already signed the contract and that the contract was paid in
full, locking me into the work stated on the invoice.
On 12-26-2011, my
daughter was overseeing the work, asking questions and reporting all actions
performed by Mr. Rooter employees to me with photos and videos. When it
was safe for me, I ventured to check in as often as possible in addition to
receiving updates from my daughter.
During the course of the
first part of the excavation, my daughter and I figured that since the basement
floor was already getting torn up that it would be easy to add a toilet.
S. told my daughter to ask E.M. about the toilet when he came to camera the
line the following day, 12-27-2011.
On 12-27-2011, the
hydrojetting truck came to pressure wash the inside of the sewer line for the
first time. After the hydrojetting procedure was completed, E.M.
arrived to camera inspect the line. The camera inspection revealed
a yellow #2 pencil, a 9-volt Energizer battery, and a clog. Due to the
proximity of the neighbor's trees to where the clog was in my home's lateral
sewer line, E.M. said that there could be "possible root damage" as
he claimed that he could not get the camera past the point identified in the
yard to the main sewer line.
So, basically, Earl NEVER
performed a full camera inspection of my home's ENTIRE lateral sewer line as
implied from the previous invoice, "camera outside sewer." The
full length of the home's lateral sewer line, the part of the sewer line that I
am responsible for as the homeowner, was supposed to be fully inspected and
diagnosed by Mr. Rooter.
E.M. told my daughter and
I that the only way to solve the problem, once again, was doing a full sewer
line replacement on the rest of the sewer line, approximately 50 feet or less,
for around $12,000-$15,000 in addition to the first invoice. I told them,
"No." My daughter asked what other options were available to
address the problem of the sewer line being clogged (She did research after the
first invoice and knew about the different processes relating to sewer line
restoration, but allowed E.M. to talk.). E.M. told us that there was a
liquid that could line the sewer in the ball park of around $5,000-$7,000 that
only carried a 1- year warranty. So, they wanted $5,000-$7,000 for a
sewer line restoration procedure that wasn't guaranteed to last. I chose
to pass on that option. The only reasonable option that I thought I had
at that time was to authorize the pipe burst procedure that E.M. said would
cost about $8,000-$9,000 and came with a 50-year warranty. E.M. explained
the pipe burst procedure (actually, a slip lining procedure…pipe bursting is
pulling a new smaller diameter pipe into the place of the existing pipe while a
machine breaks up the old pipe.) entailed inserting a 4" pipe into the
existing 6" pipe that would be untouched. The $8,000-$9,000 is what
E.M. quoted for the procedure before my daughter insisted that he go get the
price book, so that we could be certain that I was receiving the membership
pricing that I paid for on 12-24-2011. E.M. retrieved the price book and
pointed to two jobs within the book. One of the jobs was supposedly given
the membership price which was $4300. What the price is actually attached
to is not defined within the invoice. The other price was $5200 and it
was not given membership pricing consideration because E.M. said that we were
getting a toilet at no charge.
At the time and under
stress from moving and having sewage backing up into the home, I didn't think
about the relationship between E.M.'s verbal statements to us and what he
actually wrote down in the invoices. It became clear when evaluating the
invoices and the experiences with Mr. Rooter after Mr. Rooter failed to
remedy the problem of sewage backing up into my home.
E.M. told me that he was
going to give me something that he didn't. The price difference between
the actual price of the job that he pointed to in the price book and the
membership price was $400; thus, he charged $400 for the toilet he claimed that
we were getting at "no charge." The toilet was not free as the
invoice states; therefore, E.M. and Mr. Rooter of Pittsburgh lied on a business
contract; hence, committing fraud.
Upon closer inspection of
invoice 105742, it actually states the following: "replace outside sewer
stopping 2' shy of main. bed oil pipe in gravel. additional cost 9500.
prior cost 10,000. new job total 19,500. all cost are cpp
discounted. installing new toilet no charge due to cpp membership. paying
9500 by check."
First of all,
understanding Mr. Beall's lawyer's confusion upon reviewing the contract, it
does state that replacing the rest of the sewer line occurred; however, the bed
oil pipe was the 4" black pipe that my daughter had mentioned was
installed according to the information supplied to her by S. Another
inaccuracy would be that this pipe was imbedded in gravel (possibly the pipe
burst that didn't happen), but it wasn't. This pipe was installed inside
the existing 6" clay pipe as part of a slip lining process, not a
replacement.
Upon completion of the
job on 12-30-2011, I was under the impression that the sewage backup problem
had been adequately resolved as promised by the employees of Mr. Rooter of
Pittsburgh.
I was wrong!
Exactly one week after Mr. Rooter completed the projects, the sewage backed up
into the basement and created a more extensive mess than previous backups due
to the false sense of security provided to us by Mr. Rooter that they had
successfully solved our problem. Mr. Rooter was called to address the
situation and, in response, they sent out a hydrojetting truck. The
hydrojetting truck ran pressurized water through the line, assured us that we
should be fine, and left.
One week after Mr.
Rooter's hydrojetting truck came, the sewage backed up into the basement
again. Mr. Rooter was contacted about the second backup, to which they
responded by sending out another hydrojetting truck. The African American
gentleman from the hydrojetting truck claimed that we had a "soft
clog." For a "soft clog," he had a very difficult time
trying to clear it. His hydrojetting stream rose up out of the clean out
approximately 3 or 4 stories like a geyser. He told my daughter that had
never happened before and that he didn't know why it was doing that. My
daughter decided to call the township to come out to evaluate the line as
should've been done from the beginning.
The township arrived as
the Mr. Rooter hydrojetting truck technician waited around to see what the
township was going to say. The township sent a camera up their main line
and hydrojetted it. I specifically recall that the Mr. Rooter technician
asked a township employee if the section of my home's lateral sewer line could
be replaced from where Mr. Rooter's work stopped to the main. The
township employee told him, No."
Then, the township sent a
camera up my home's lateral sewer line and couldn't make out what the blockage
was. The township decided to go ahead and hydrojet my home's lateral
sewer line from the clean out (where Mr. Rooter's work ended) to the
main. The Mr. Rooter Hydrojetting technician told my daughter that the
township has better equipment and should be able to get the sewer line
flowing. Additionally, the Mr. Rooter tech told my daughter that he was
afraid of getting the hose stuck in the sewer line and having to pay to get it
removed. Prior to the township hydrojetting my home's lateral sewer line,
the Mr. Rooter technician left.
One week after the
township's intervention, another sewage backup occurred. I decided to
skip calling Mr. Rooter, yet again, for a problem that they are obviously
unqualified to address. Instead, I called the township. The
township arrived at my home and, as a courtesy, camera inspected the work that
Mr. Rooter had completed in order to be sure that it was done properly.
The township determined that it was. They proceeded to hydrojet my
home's lateral sewer line from the clean out located near the basement door to
the main sewer line. On this visit, they did not camera to check that the
line was clear; however, they observed flow and thought that it was good to go.
In order to address the
regular frequency of sewage backing up into my basement, the township decided
to make an appointment to clean out my home's lateral sewer line using the
camera to make sure that any blockages are cleared and to be sure that no
additional work on my home's lateral sewer line was necessary.
In a letter to Mr. Rooter
of Pittsburgh, sent on 1-22-2012 from my daughter's email account, states
exactly what frame of mind we were and are still both in…We are angry and
extremely dissatisfied to have paid $19,500 for a sewer line
replacement/sliplining process that was supposed to be done up to within 2' of
the main (it wasn't), and then find ourselves no better off than before we
signed the invoices to have the work done. Mr. Rooter didn't do anything
to solve the problem in which they were contracted to solve.
Apparently, upon
receiving my daughter's email, E.M. decided to show up at the house the
following day just a few hours before the township arrived to do a
camera-assisted clean out.
First of all, I don't
recall (and neither does my daughter) inviting E.M. to park his van in the back
yard. In fact, I didn't even know anyone was on my property. That
is, until we noticed a man walking across the porch, and then peering
in the windows like a "Peeping Tom." It took a few
minutes with my daughter looking to realize that it was E.M. I opened the
door to find out what he wanted. He wanted to sell me a $5,000 back flow
preventer, claiming that it was the only way to prevent sewage from backing up into
my basement again. At that point, my daughter and I informed him that the
township would be here in a few hours. My daughter made sure he didn't
touch anything (that we know of). My daughter also recalls how E.M. spent
quite a bit of time walking around talking on his cell phone before he finally
left.
After the township had
arrived to camera inspect and clean my home's lateral sewer line (of grease),
they determined that everything was fine.
Since the TOWNSHIP
cleared the grease out of MY HOME'S LATERAL SEWER LINE, the line that I am
responsible for and that you were contracted to restore flow to (but didn't),
there has been NO SEWAGE BACKUPS in a little over 9 MONTHS!
Furthermore, I am
extremely unhappy with the fact that the concrete slab in front of the outside
basement door has a crack running where the old concrete meets the new
concrete. When they first did it, it looked fine; however, after it
dried, it cracked. The remainder of the concrete slab should've been
jackhammered and re-poured as it was obvious that no bonding agents were
appropriately applied.
Another thing that I am
not happy about is that the drain for the basement shower was moved from its
original location, making it hard to find a new shower base. All I had to
do in order to use that shower (prior to excavation), was to replace the
plumbing. Now I have to worry about moving the drain or custom forming
the shower base. I really need to have access to a shower. The tub
is extremely difficult for me to use.
In conclusion, NONE….I
repeat NONE of the work that Mr. Rooter did contributed to solving the problem
of sewage backing up into my basement. Mr. Rooter is also guilty of
engaging in the following behaviors: high pressure, misleading sales
tactics; breech of contract; and the inadequate completion and delivery of
services.
My daughter predicted
that the "discussion" between you and her would be unproductive.
Know that dealing with my daughter is the same as dealing with me as she
is my representative in this matter. My daughter was able to be 99% there
throughout the entire process and has the most first-hand knowledge and
understanding regarding the situation. A majority of my knowledge is
second-hand, based on what she has reported to me. So, I don't understand
why you wouldn't go to the primary source.
Again, any contact
regarding the situation is to be in writing ONLY!
Sincerely,
Mary The Homeowner
123 Somewhere Street
Westmoreland, PA 12345
My daughter's blog:
http://howmrrooterofpittsburghscammedme.blogspot.com/
***PLEASE NOTE: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
HAS BEEN ALTERED/REMOVED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CONTACT INFORMATION AND
PRIVACY (FOR THOSE WHO AREN’T KNOWN OR ALREADY IDENTIFIED OPENLY TO THE
PUBLIC***
After receiving permission from my
daughter, I have provided the emails that were exchanged between Ms. Thompson
and my daughter:
from:
Rachel (The Homeowner's
Daughter)
to:
Mary (The President of Mr.
Rooter Corporation)
date:
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:34 AM
subject:
RE: Mary....Forward Email
From Daughter's Account Detailing First Notification of Intense
Dissatisfaction
As per my mother's request, I have
forwarded you the first email documenting her dissatisfaction regarding the
work completed by Mr. Rooter of Pittsburgh.
---------- Forwarded message
----------
From: Rachel (The Homeowner's
Daughter)
Date: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM
Subject: Mr. Rooter STILL did not
solve my problem $20,265.05 ($20, 267.05)later….
To: [email protected]
I wanted to inform you of our
situation. Currently, we still have the SAME exact plumbing problems in
which we contracted you to fix right the first time.
You completed main sewer line work for:
Mary The Homeowner
12-24-2011 Through 12-30-2011
Invoice: 106273 :
767.05
Invoice: 105738 : 10,000.00
Invoice: 105742 :
9,500.00
-----------------
Total Paid:
$20,265.05 ($20,267.05)
Below describes everything that has
transpired up to this point:
When business was first initiated with Mr. Rooter at
64 Progress Avenue in Cranberry Township, PA 16066, it was due to sewage
backing up from the basement floor drain on Christmas Eve, 12-24-2011.
(This was the SECOND time we had someone come to the home we just purchased on
12-14-2011 about this problem.) The technician that arrived from Mr.
Rooter gave us the price to complete the work that the previous plumber told us
might need to be done in order to address the problem, which was to install a
clean-out and run a larger drain routing line down the main lateral sewer
line: $767.05 (Mr. Rooter Invoice). At the end of that
visit, we knew that a bigger problem existed because the drain-routing machine
got hung up and couldn't get very far down the line. It was decided that
a video camera inspection was necessary in order to find out what was going on
in the line.
The next day, Christmas Day, 12-25-2011, a video
inspection was done in which the technician said that it was necessary to
replace the entire line underneath the foundation up to 5' to the outside of
the building to the outside where the house trap is located: $10,000 (Mr.
Rooter Invoice). I watched the video inspection and saw clogs, but
wouldn't have known what I was looking for. The diagnosis on the invoice
reads, "draining slow." Well, no kidding! It is draining
so slow that it backs up into the basement. The diagnosis on the invoice
should've been more specific as to what was revealed during the first video
inspection. I asked for a more detailed diagnosis based on the video
inspection, even after all the work was completed; yet, Mr. Rooter still never
provided the requested information to me so that it could be submitted to HSA
for consideration to see if it is possible to recoup what would be covered
under the terms of the home warranty (Which, by HSA's contract terms, would
never be more than $500). Upon signing the contract, they dug to provide
a relief area so that we could use our plumbing until they started work on
Monday, 12-26-2011.
On Monday, 12-26-2011, a technician arrived with
equipment to start jackhammering through the basement floor to reveal the sewer
line. According to some of the photos I took and what the technician had
said, the soil was black and it was wet around the pipes, which indicated that
it has been leaking for sometime. Even when he was digging to reveal the
house trap, the soil was black and there was water pooling there, which indicated
that there was probably sewage leeching for quite sometime. On this same
day, I believe that it was necessary to get the hydrojetting truck to unclog
the pipe that ran underneath the basement door. Down the line, the hose
couldn't get past a certain point; thus, the video camera was needed again.
On Tuesday, 12-27-2011, the technician, who does the
video camera inspections, came to camera the rest of the line. To
me, the line looked clear, with the exception of a battery and a pencil up to
where he couldn't get the camera past. At first, the technician said that
a full excavation was necessary, but later said that a pipe bursting could be
done to 2' shy of the main that would COMPLETELY solve
my problem for the tune of $9,500 and was told that they would
go ahead and install a toilet in the basement for me while everything was still
open at no charge (But, they did charge me for that toilet. I had
purchased the Advantage Plan in order to get discounted pricing and premium
service for $199.95 and did not give me advantage pricing for the $5200
service, so they did actually charge me $400 to install the toilet-That is
almost a fraudulent statement right there…just sayin').
When they did the pipe burst, something was blocking
their ability to get the pipe through the line. They called the
hydrojetting truck again to come out so that they could continue installation
of the pipe. I was told that the technician was going to come out to
camera the line to see what the problem was, but he didn't come (It wasn't
necessary according to the technician that was there). The technician
that was there assured me that everything would be fine and I should have NO problems
with the line upon completion of the work.
So, one week after all the work was done, sewage
backed up from my basement drain AGAIN and was even leaking out of the bottom
of the new toilet they installed. Mr. Rooter came with the hydrojetting
truck and hydrojetted the line, but couldn't get it clear. The Township
came and hydrojetted and cleared the line; however, it did not last. A
week after they cleared the line, I had to call the Township again to come out
and hydrojet the line. On Monday, 1-23-2012, the Township will perform a
camera inspection to find out what the problem is with the line - if it is
their responsibility, they will fix it….If it is ours, it is our
responsibility. The men from the township asked me if Mr. Rooter put a
video camera down the line after they were completed with the project in order
to make sure there were no further problems and I told them that they did
not. I hadn't seen the camera guy since the last invoice that was written
up on 12-27-2011.
So, here we are at $20,267.05 (Mr. Rooter's
Kitty) for the total replacement of the sewer line underneath the
foundation, extending five feet from the house AND a pipe burst procedure (a
4" pipe put through the current 6" terra-cotta pipes) to just 2' shy
from the main that runs behind the house in the backyard according to the work
order. The only thing is, considering the angle of the lateral main sewer
line, it is more like the work stops at about 5'-10' to the main from the
access protruding from the yard. When the Township performs the camera
inspection, I will ask them to tell me how far from the main the work that Mr.
Rooter did is exactly in order to determine if work was completed according to
the terms set on the invoice.
Now, don't get me wrong. The technicians from
Mr. Rooter that showed up were very friendly and courteous. They
definitely robbed us, without addressing the problem that they promised that
they would solve completely right the first time, with a smile on their face
all the way to the bank. Now, if the problem was completely 100% fixed
for $20,267.05….I would recommend them and call them for other
plumbing projects; however, we SINCE we have the SAME EXACT PROBLEM. Not
to mention that I am 100% certain that they did not come within 2' shy of the
main (Which would've been to the tap) according to the contract, I can not
recommend them to others.....It would be like recommending crooks.
Based on the results of the Township's video camera
inspection, I see in Mr. Rooter's foreseeable future:
BBB
Attorney General
A lawsuit For Failing To Complete The Work Promised
from:
Mary (The President of Mr.
Rooter Corporation)
to:
Rachel (The Homeowner's
Daughter)
date:
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:19 AM
subject:
Re: Mary....Forward Email
From Daughter's Account Detailing First Notification of Intense
Dissatisfaction
Thank you Rachel. Is there a good
time we can speak with your Mother?
All the best,
Mary Kennedy Thompson
President
Mr. Rooter LLC
www.Twitter.com/mkennedythom
www.MrsRooter.com
from:
Rachel (The Homeowner's
Daughter)
to:
Mary (The President of Mr.
Rooter Corporation)
date:
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:36 AM
subject:
Re: Mary....Forward Email
From Daughter's Account Detailing First Notification of Intense
Dissatisfaction
Mary,
My mother already send you an email
that she spent 9 hours composing. I suggest you read it. I will not
deal with you any further.
Sincerely,
Rachel
from:
Mary Thompson (President of Mr. Rooter Corporation)
to:
Rachel (The Homeowner's
Daughter)
cc:
Stacie (Customer Service
Manager/Assistant To Mary)
date:
Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM
subject:
RE: Mary....Forward Email
From Daughter's Account Detailing First Notification of Intense
Dissatisfaction
Good morning Rachel,
I did get your Mother’s email last
night. Thank you. I’ve left a message for your Mom so we can talk
since she is the customer. Thank you for your time yesterday.
All the best,
Mary Kennedy Thompson - CFE
President - Mr. Rooter® 

When you walk with purpose, you
collide with destiny.
______________________________

(d) 254.745.2597
(c) 254.733.0636
(o) 800.583.8003
(f) 254.537.0710
___________________________

1010 N. University Parks Drive
Waco, TX 76707


So, based on Ms. Thompson telling my
daughter that she received my e-mail, I couldn't understand why she didn't
respond to me directly. So, I sent Ms. Thompson the following email:
From: Mary (The Homeowner) 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Mary (The President of Mr. Rooter
Corporation)
Cc: Rachel (The Homeowner's Daughter)
Subject: RE: Mary - ALL
COMMUNICATION IS TO BE IN WRITING ONLY (EMAIL, USPS, ETC.)
10-31-2012
Dear Ms. Thompson,
This morning my daughter informs me
that you sent her an email thanking her for giving you her time yesterday, but
failed to apologize for wasting her time by talking over her and interrupting
her responses to your questions. Additionally, you also told her that you
left me a message. I responded to the message that you left in my
voicemail in the formal complaint I sent you via email last night.
What floors me is that in your
email to my daughter, you asked her what would be a good time to talk to
me!!!! Answer: There is NO good time. I spent 9 hours
yesterday writing a formal complaint via email to you as president of Mr.
Rooter as per your conversation with my daughter yesterday afternoon. I
made it clear that future communication with me regarding this
matter was to be: a) in writing ONLY (email, USPS, etc.)
and b) with my daughter as an extension of me. My DAUGHTER
has the FIRST-HAND experience; I have, mostly, SECOND-HAND
experience with regard to the situation. To put it in simple terms for
simple minds, this means that she knows more about the situation
that I do!! I trust her to represent the truth; however, you are NOT interested in the truth regarding the
situation. If you were, it would've been resolved in March of 2012.
You HAVE all the facts.
Period. I have NOTHING to discuss with you. You will either correct
the situation or leave it stand as the injustice that it is. Against my
daughter's suggestion, I firmly believe that Mr. Rooter owes me the ENTIRE
amount of the sewer line replacement/sliplining process that they fraudulently
told me that I needed which is in the amount of $19,500, adding to that the cost
of the worthless "Valued Customer Protection Plan" of $199.95 for a
total refund amount of $19,699.95.
Sincerely,
Mary The Homeowner
In response, Ms. Thompson sent me the
following email:
Good morning Mrs. P,
First, thank you for sending this
email. Rest assured we care about every customer experience at Mr. Rooter
and we want to get to the heart of this matter which is why a conversation so
that both you and I can ask questions to find solutions is necessary. The last
conversation you had with anyone at Mr. Rooter (the manager at the Mr. Rooter
in Pittsburgh) you had said you were happy with the work. Since then we have
only heard from Rachel which began about three weeks ago more than seven months
after the job was completed. I asked Rachel yesterday why she had reached
back out to us and she did not and would not provide an answer.
I was on the phone yesterday with
Rachel attempting to sift through all the information and get to the heart of
the matter when Rachel hung up after I asked her about talking with you.
I said that I wanted to talk with you – since you’re our customer – and if she
had anything from the Township to provide facts and insights to the situation
on what had happened it would help us to find the best solution. It was
at that point she hung up.
I do not recall receiving an email
from you last night. What I received at 11:35 pm last night was an email from Rachel from her gmail address. It
outlined an email she had sent (rather than you our customer) during the front
end of the work being done. Neither email had your signature, both coming
from an account named ******@gmail.com
I’d like you to know that I’d still
be most happy to talk directly with you Mrs. Province to look for the best
solution. I will not call you again, at your request, but remain
available to you should you choose. My direct desk line is (254) 745-2597.
Otherwise, I’ll leave the conversation with Mr. Beall, our franchisee and his
attorneys.
Please know I truly believe an open
conversation about what happened would clarify and help all of us get to the
right answer.
All the best,
Mary Kennedy Thompson - CFE
President - Mr.
Rooter® 

When you walk with purpose, you
collide with destiny.
______________________________

(d) 254.745.2597
(o) 800.583.8003
(f) 254.537.0710
___________________________

1010 N. University Parks Drive
Waco, TX 76707


After receiving that last email from
the president of Mr. Corporation, I could NOT believe that she just
intentionally lied to me (i.e. tell my daughter that you got my email, but tell
me that you didn't)! I was not about to allow her to get away with what
she had just done, so I sent her a copy of her email with corrections that I
had made in order to turn her email into the truth…not the tall tale that I had
just read:
Ms. Kennedy,
Now I understand why you refuse to have WRITTEN
CONVERSATIONS. What is said in written conversations can be proved.
Conversations are capable of being conducted both verbally and through
writing. I have addressed the inaccuracies in the content of your recent
email below:
Good morning Mrs. P,
First, thank you for sending this
email. Rest assured we care about every customer experience at Mr. Rooter
and we want to get to the heart of this matter which is why a conversation so
that both you and I can ask questions to find solutions is necessary. The last
conversation you had with anyone at Mr. Rooter (the manager at the Mr. Rooter
in Pittsburgh) you had said you were happy with the work. [The last conversation I had with the manager of Mr. Rooter of
Pittsburgh was telling him that I was FURIOUS because after $19,500 worth of
work, sewage was still backing up into my basement. For your information,
telling a manager that you are furious means that I AM NOT HAPPY!!!!] Since then we have only heard from Rachel which began about
three weeks ago more than seven months after the job was completed. [This is a false statement. According to my daughter's
email records, it states that she contacted corporate and received email
communication from you personally on 3-5-2012. On 4-24-2012, she sent a
reply email to you outlining the specifics of the situation. On
4-27-2012, you sent her an email telling her that Stacie was looking into the
complaint. On 5-26-2012, my daughter was finally free to discuss the
situation and sent you her phone number. By 8-1-2012, we were both angry
and she sent you an email in reference to that. Then, contact with media
commenced in October. So, attempts to contact the local franchisee and
the corporate office have occurred multiple times and have been unproductive at
all levels] I asked Rachel
yesterday why she had reached back out to us and she did not and would not
provide an answer. [It is not that she did not and would
not. It is that she could not because you would not let her. You
kept talking over her and she couldn't get a word in edgewise]
I was on the phone yesterday with
Rachel attempting to sift through all the information and get to the heart of the
matter when Rachel hung up after I asked her about talking with you. I said that I wanted to talk
with you – since you’re our customer – and if she had anything from the
Township to provide facts and insights to the situation on what had happened it
would help us to find the best solution. It was at that point she hung
up. [You did not allow her to participate in the conversation,
so she hung up] [FYI: The sewage authority is looking into the
situation at my request for the pertinent information.]
I do not recall receiving an email
from you last night. [Again, that is false. In
an email that you sent to my daughter this morning, you stated that you
received her Mother's email and that you left a message with me. So, what
you are communicating to me is that you refuse to acknowledge that you received
communication from ME, the customer, directly. That email served as the
formal complaint that my daughter said you needed!] What I received at 11:35 pm last night was an email from Rachel from her gmail address. It
outlined an email she had sent (rather than you our customer) during the front
end of the work being done. [The email sent
from her address was done at my request AFTER I sent my formal complaint via
email to you. Also, I, the customer DID speak with the customer service
manager at Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Pittsburgh AFTER that 1-22-2012 email was
sent confirming the content and expressing my displeasure. Mr. Rooter of
Pittsburgh's response was to have E.M. come out and try to sell me an unnecessary
$5,000 backflow preventer that the sewage authority employees told me that I
didn't need and not to let Mr. Rooter do ANYTHING else!] Neither email had your signature, [So, you are talking about two emails? My daughter only
forwarded the original email from 1-22-2012 from her email account at my
request. The email that I sent to you does have my E-Signature and it
comes from MY email account, in addition to being the official complaint to you
via email.] both coming from an account named *****@gmail.com. [Again, I spoke WITH the manager at Mr. Rooter Plumbing of
Pittsburgh and expressed DISSATISFACTION - NOT SATISFACTION!] [ S***@****.com
is MY email account. Like you, I am capable of sending copies of my
emails with you to my daughter's account. If you look closely, you will
see that my email to you, the one you said you received to my daughter and
denied receiving to me, is from my email account and that her email address is
in the CC field.]
I’d like you to know that I’d still
be most happy to talk directly with you Mrs. Province to look for the best
solution. [Again, I stated that the
communication format that I intend on using is written. Failure to engage
in written conversation with me would be considered refusing to discuss the
situation in a provable forum. The only way that you and I will have a
conversation is that if it is a recorded call where all parties approve the
call and sign legal authorizations that it be admissible in court.] I will not call you again, at your request, but remain available
to you should you choose. My direct desk line is (254) 745-2597. Otherwise,
I’ll leave the conversation with Mr. Beall, our franchisee and his attorneys.
Please know I truly believe an open
conversation about what happened would clarify and help all of us get to the
right answer. [Actually, I believe that you are
incapable of having an open conversation due to the fact that you won't
listen. My daughter described your interactions not as a questioning
process, but rather an interrogation. If you are interested in getting to
the bottom of this matter, then send your questions that need clarification via
email, USPS directly to me and I would be happy to respond and provide
clarification.]
All the best,
Mary Kennedy Thompson - CFE
President - Mr. Rooter®
When you walk with purpose, you
collide with destiny.
So, did Ms. Thompson respond to my
email? No, she did not. Her lack of response sends the message that
she purposefully presented her intentions falsely to the customer.
I am of the opinion that she didn't
like it that I would not allow her to try to bully me the same way that she was
trying to bully my daughter on the phone - trying to use half-truths to get my
daughter to say that Mr. Rooter's work contributed to solving the problem when,
in fact, it DID NOT! The problem was NOT solved or improved in ANY way
until the township cleared out my home's lateral sewer line on 1-23-2012.
On 1-23-2012, the only thing they found in my home's lateral sewer line was
grease (like the rest of the entire sewer line) and reported to me that the
rest of my home's lateral sewer line was in good shape from where Mr. Rooter
stopped work to where the township's main sewer line begins. The township
employees, like my daughter and I, also believed that the work Mr. Rooter did
was unnecessary. We have good people working for the township…They felt
bad because we just got ripped off for $19,500 to have none of the work that
was done make a difference in solving the problem that we had called on them to
solve originally.
Please let my experience (and the
experiences of others on my daughter's blog) serve as evidence to either:
a) Provide you with enough information
to deter you from even picking up the phone to call them or any other brand
under The Dwyer Group
OR
b) Provide you with enough
information to encourage you to document every second of the process if you do
choose to allow Mr. Rooter to perform work for you (hidden video cameras and
with audio if you are in a state that permits that)…Keep in mind that, even
with evidence, Mr. Rooter Corporation (and other Corporations under The Dwyer
Group) will STILL support the unscrupulous business practices of the franchisee
that you are complaining to them about.
OR
c) Provide you with enough
information to help you go through the proper steps to lodge formal complaints
across a variety of different platforms and get the word out there to others…
There is strength in
numbers!!!!! We just have to gather everyone together and have a
discussion. They should NOT be allowed to get away with this kind of
unethical behavior!
Engage in appropriate, peaceful
displays to your friends about your commitment to refuse giving your
hard-earned money (that is….if you have any left) to any brand under The Dwyer
Group because they are constantly found guilty of:
-not completing the terms of their
contracts
-failing to perform the work in the
contracts adequately
-failing to follow company's
"Code of Values" as promised to the general public
-poor customer service
-price gouging
They claim that their customers are
important; yet, look at how that handled my situation AND the situation of
others…maybe even your situation?
PA Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act:
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedfiles/consumers/hic/act_132_home_improvement.pdf
Here are the points in the Home Improvement
Consumer Protection Act that I see were violated:
§ 517.7. Home improvement contracts
(a) Requirements.--No home improvement contract shall
be valid or enforceable against an owner unless it:
(1) Is in writing and legible and
contains the home improvement contractor registration number of the performing
contractor.
[Invoice 106273 does NOT contain the contractor
registration number of the performing contractor, not even Mr. Rooter Plumbing
of Pittsburgh. This writing on this invoice is legible.]
[Invoice 105738 does NOT contain the contractor
registration number of the performing contractor, not even Mr. Rooter Plumbing
of Pittsburgh. Additionally, the writing on the invoice is small and
barely legible]
[Invoice 105742 does NOT contain the contractor
registration number of the performing contractor, not even Mr. Rooter Plumbing
of Pittsburgh. Additionally, the writing on the invoice is small and
barely legible]
(2) Is signed by all of the
following: (i) The owner, his agent or other contracted party. (ii) The
contractor or a salesperson on behalf of a contractor.
[The signature of the homeowner and the
homeowner's daughter with the homeowner's permission would be accurate and fall
under this section. The salesman didn't actually sign anywhere on any of
the above invoices. On Invoice 106273, a salesman/technician (on behalf
of Mr. Rooter Plumbing Pittsburgh) printed his first initial, his last name, and
a number that could possibly be his employee number in a field titled
"technician." (the closest evidence I saw to complying with second
part of this requirement). On subsequent invoices, the last name of the
salesman/technician was printed in the field titled "technician"
without identifying an employee number or anything relevant.]
(3) Contains the entire agreement
between the owner and the contractor, including attached copies of all required
notices.
[Each invoice contains the agreement, with Invoice
105738 not accurately explaining the work that was supposed to be done that was
actually done. On Invoice 106273, the homeowner signed that the work was
completed concerning a cleanout and a drain cleaning that appeared to be
performed according to the invoice.]
(4) Contains the date of the
transaction.
[The date of the transaction is present on all of
the invoices.]
(5) Contains the name, address and
telephone number of the contractor. For the purposes of this paragraph, a post
office box number alone shall not be considered an address.
[These fields exist on all of the invoices.]
(6) Contains the approximate
starting date and completion date.
[On invoice 106273, the starting and completion
dates were irrelevant due to the fact that the job was performed at that
time. On subsequent invoices, (105738 and 105742) there is nothing that
indicates when the job will begin or end. The only evidence of any job
completion date is located on the "Exclusive Lifetime Excavation Warranty"
which is 12-28-2011. The work was actually completed on 12-30-2011.]
(7) Includes a description of the
work to be performed, the materials to be used and a set of specifications that
cannot be changed without a written change order signed by the owner and the
contractor.
[The only invoice that appears to follow these
guidelines is Invoice 106273. Subsequent invoices describe the work, with
Invoice 105742 inadequately describing the process that was actually
done. A replacement of the outside sewer line did not occur, but rather a
4" pipe was inserted (a slip-lining process) into the current 6"
terra cotta clay pipes. It is possible that I was also charged for a
different process as well. According to the invoice, there is no proof
how much I was charged for each service that was performed (hydrojetting,
camera inspection, and the sewer replacement/sewer line slip-lining
process). They are supposed to quote from an advertised no hidden fees
price book that, according to Invoice 106273, contains task numbers that probably
refer to jobs within the price book. Nothing like that remotely exists on
Invoices 105738 and 105742.]
(8) Includes the total sales price
due under the contract.
[It does include a total sales price due under
the contract. Whether I was appropriately charged, however, is a whole
other issue.]
(9) Includes the amount of any down
payment plus any amount advanced for the purchase of special order materials.
The amount of the down payment and the cost of the special order materials must
be listed separately.
[Actually, I was told that it had to be paid in
full at the time that the contracts were signed prior to any work beginning, so
it states that invoices were paid in full.]
Home Improvement Consumer
Protection Act Page 7 Amended 7.07.11
(10) Includes the names, addresses
and telephone numbers of all subcontractors on the project known at the date of
signing the contract. For the purposes of this paragraph, a post office box
number alone shall not be considered an address.
[Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Pittsburgh employees were
the ones contracted. If that is considered to fall under this statement,
then contact information for Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Pittsburgh employees was
included; however, it is important to note that it was nearly impossible to get
hold of the salesman/technicians who were responsible for selling me the
service that there is NO solid evidence that I even needed done at that
specific time…That it was an emergency, aside from cleaning the sewer line.]
(11) Except as provided in section
125, agrees to maintain liability
insurance covering personal injury in an amount not less than $50,000 and
insurance covering property damage caused by the work of a home improvement
contractor in an amount not less than $50,000 and identifies the current amount
of insurance coverage maintained at the time of signing the contract.
[Unknown]
(12) Includes the toll-free
telephone number under section 3(b)6.
[No toll-free number is included on the invoice.]
(13) Includes a notice of the right
of rescission under subsection (b).
[The notice of the right of rescission under
subsection (b) is included underneath the customer's signature.]
(b) Right of rescission.--An individual signing a home improvement contract, except as
provided in the emergency provisions of section 7 of the act of December 17,
1968 (P.L. 1224, No. 387)7, known
as the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, shall be permitted
to rescind the contract without penalty regardless of where the contract was
signed, within three business days of the date of signing.
(c) Copy to be provided.--A contractor or salesperson shall provide and deliver to the
owner, without charge, a completed copy of the home improvement contract at the
time the contract is executed which shall contain all required notices.
(d) Arbitration clause.--Nothing in this act shall preclude the court from setting aside
an arbitration clause on any basis permitted under Pennsylvania law. If the
contract contains an arbitration clause, it shall meet the following
requirements or be deemed void by the court upon motion of either party, filed
prior to the commencement of arbitration:
[I'm not entirely sure if I have one of these
arbitration clauses...]
(1) The text of the clause must be
in capital letters.
(2) The text shall be printed in
12-point boldface type and the arbitration clause must appear on a separate
page from the rest of the contract.
(3) The clause shall contain a
separate line for each of the parties to indicate their assent to be bound
thereby.
(4) The clause shall not be
effective unless both parties have assented as evidenced by signature and date,
which shall be the date on which the contract was executed.
(5) The clause shall state clearly
whether the decision of the arbitration is binding on the parties or may be
appealed to the court of common pleas.
(6) The clause shall state whether
the facts of the dispute, related documents and the decision are confidential.
(e) Voidable clauses.--If a home improvement contract contains any of the following
clauses, the home improvement contract shall be voidable by the owner:
(1) A hold harmless clause.
[Those hold harmless clauses exist. Who
hires a plumber to perform work and does not expect them to put the home back
in the same condition that it was prior to starting work? If you review
their Terms and Conditions, it actually communicates that Mr. Rooter Plumbing
is not responsible for the following: damaging your home accessing
plumbing (so they could jackhammer through your wall and go, "oops, too
bad."), damage to the plumbing system ("that was fine until I ran a
jackhammer through it. oops, too bad.") when accessing plumbing to
address the plumbing identified by the salesman/"technician" as
defective, and a list of items that the homeowner would actually have to bring
in a different contractor for unless otherwise stated in the contract.
Well, I kept reiterating that, unless everything was going to be in the same
condition that it was prior to the work being done for that kind of money, then
I would not authorize the work. A photo taken of the concrete slab serves
as an example that they did not redo the concrete in an acceptable manner
according to the invoice. Under the service authorization, it states the
following "I also agree to hold Mr. Rooter or its assigns harmless for
parts deemed corroded, unusable, or unreliable for completion of stated work to
be done." So, could that also imply that they could have used these
types of parts within the scope of the work, but since this statement exists,
that it isn't their fault? I understand if the previous statement
pertains to preexisting conditions, which aren't conditions that were present
in my situation.]
(2) A waiver of Federal, State or
local health, life, safety or building code requirements.
5 73 P.S. § 517.12. 6 73 P.S. § 517.3. 7 73 P.S. § 201-7.
[Unknown]
Home Improvement Consumer
Protection Act Page 8 Amended 7.07.11
(3) A confession of judgment
clause.
[Unknown]
(4) A waiver of any right to a jury
trial in any action brought by or against the owner.
[Unknown]
(5) (Reserved).
[Unknown]
(6) An assignment of or order for
payment |
|
|
|
|
try http://www.heyheytea.com
Heyheytea sells fine Chinese tea at great prices. Our main categories of Chinese tea
are Green Tea $6.99, Black Tea $9.99, Oolong Tea $8.99, White Tea and Herbal Tea
$7.99. Their teas are guaranteed fresh as we ship them directly to you from Asia.
Accept paypal, credit card, moneygram, westernunion, webmoney, QIWI, bank transfer, Alipay
and other payments.
http://www.heyheytea.com |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
