Business ProfileforEarl's Performance Plumbing

On Dec. 11, 2023, ****'s quoted, and was paid, $1,133.59 to install a customer-provided hot-water recirculating pump, an inexpensive (< $20) bib on a PVC standpipe and fix a leaking frost-free hose bib. Total on-site labor time was approximately 45 minutes. On Dec. 12, I contacted ****'s to inquire about the charges as they seemed excessive for the minimal amount of time and materials expended. ******* manager "****" acknowledged that they erroneously charged me for the pump, which I provided (and was so specified on the invoice.) He also explained that the frost-free hose bib fix is not a long-term solution and they do not claim it as such, but offered no explanation of why they charged $637.49 for approximately 30 minutes of labor and a replacement stem part. I acknowledged that the tech explained that this exterior repair was not permanent and likely would leak again in the future. However, the implication -- and my understanding -- was that the leak would be stopped for a matter of years, not minutes. ****'s then credited me for the erroneous pump charge ($286) and reduced the bib leak repair to $337.49. The leak was never stopped and continues to leak to this day (January 17, ****), as it did prior to the "repair." A "non-fix" is not equivalent to a "short-term fix", which was promised and paid for. The $286 charge for the self-provided pump, discovered by the customer, could be considered fraudulent and the pricing predatory to senior citizens. In light of the hose bib leak remaining unfixed, I seek a refund of the full amount of charges for that undone repair -- $337.49. For the benefit of future senior citizen customers, I request that ****'s be required to provide detailed itemized invoices to all customers in the future, clearly showing labor time and specific parts costs. The itemization should also be presented in the quotation of charges to customers prior to starting a job.