*please note: identifying information has been altered/removed in order to protect the contact information and privacy (for those who arent 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 Homeowners Daughter)
Date:
Wed, Oct 31 at 12:29 AM
Subject:
RE: Mary, The Homeowners 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. March 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 problemNOT Mr. Rooter!
On my behalf, my daughter will forward the email I asked her to send Mr. Rooter of Pittsburgh on 1-22. 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, 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, 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. 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. 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, 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.
On 12-27, 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 procedurepipe 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. 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, 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 from my daughter's email account, states exactly what frame of mind we were and are still both inWe 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 arent 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 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 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 Through 12-30
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. (This was the SECOND time we had someone come to the home we just purchased on 12-14 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, 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.
On Monday, 12-26, 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, 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 therejust 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, 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.
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 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 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 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 Mothers email last night. Thank you. Ive 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 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
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.
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 youre 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
Id like you to know that Id 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, Ill 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 truthnot 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. On 4-24, she sent a reply email to you outlining the specifics of the situation. On 4-27, you sent her an email telling her that Stacie was looking into the complaint. On 5-26, my daughter was finally free to discuss the situation and sent you her phone number.By 8-1, 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 youre 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 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 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.]
Id like you to know that Id 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, Ill 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. On 1-23, 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 townshipThey 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
othersmaybe 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. The work was actually completed on 12-30.]
(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 timeThat 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 of wages or other compensation for services.
[Unknown]
(7) A provision by which the owner agrees not to assert any claim or defense arising out of the contract.
[Well, if they make you sign something when they falsely made you believe that you had to have an emergency sewer line
replacement, one could see how that could fall under this statement.]
(8) A provision that the contractor shall be awarded attorney fees and costs.
[Unknown]
(9) A clause by which the owner relieves the contractor from liability for acts committed by the contractor or
the contractor's agents in the collection of any payments or in the repossession of any goods.
[If the contractor is not responsible for any damage to the non-defective plumbing or to the home in accessing plumbing, that
is a clause that relieves the contractor from liability for acts not only for installing but for repossessing as well! ]
(10) A waiver of any rights provided under this act.
[Actually, yes. This exists under the Emergency Work Authorization and the Waiver of Right to Cancel.
Using high pressure, misleading sales tactics, and misdiagnosis, the sewage continued to back up into the home as a result of
a grease blockage still present in the homeowner's lateral sewer line AFTER Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Pittsburgh was paid in full and claimed to have completed the work contained within the invoices on 12-30.
Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Pittsburgh, however, failed to complete the work within the invoices that related to the homeowner
being forced signing their rights away under the FTC. If the homeowner didn't sign these forms, the work could not be performed.
The emergency was clearing the line in order to prevent sewage from backing up into the home. The homeowner signed their
rights away under the FTC under the impression that a license plumber had assessed and would be working on resolving the issue.
Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Pittsburgh based their recommendation for a complete sewer line replacement on the diagnosis of
"draining slow." Additionally, due to all the debris in the lateral sewer line on the first video inspection (the only one that the homeowner has), it is difficult to see any evidence of cracked, misaligned, or collapsed pipes that would necessitate a sewer line restoration process of any kind. The only cracks in the pipes were inside under the foundation revealed AFTER the jackhammer was used. It is possible that the jackhammer's vibrations and contact with the pipes cracked them; thus allowing
the water from the clog, present somewhere under the foundation around the threshold near the basement door, in the lateral sewer line to leak out and into the soilwith the technician pointing it out in order to make the homeowner falsely believe that the process was necessary. Also, the homeowne
0 comments