Complaint Category: Services resulted in additional damage (exp. Damaged product during shipping)
Complaint: Broken and unreported damage to the sprinkler system which they pretended to have fixed.
****** and another worker came out on March 12 to clean out my lateral lines. They worked most of the day, and after cleaning out the laterals, they proceeded to repair water lines they had broken in the same area they had broken and repaired back in November when they had come out for their original diagnosis of my septic problem. Then ****** said I shouldn't run the sprinkler system for several days because the drain field was pretty wet and needed to dry out. They did not test the sprinkler system to make sure it was working okay. A few days later I turned on that zone of the sprinkler system, it did not work and I could see water bubbling out of the ground near one of the holes they had dug. I called Fosters and asked that ****** call me, explaining the problem and asking that he return soon to repair the line as I had to keep the fescue seeds I had just scattered over the repair site moist. When I didn't hear from him, I called again the next day, and again the following day, and again... He finally called me back a full week after I had first called. He advised me that he had talked to his dad (the owner of Fosters?) who told him he is prohibited by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from repairing a water line within 10' of a lateral line. Hmmmm, why were they able to repair the very same line in November when they did their diagnosis of my problem and broke it? Why was I not informed of this DEQ rule at an earlier date prior to the job? Why did he wait an entire week to get back with me?
I called a sprinkler system company and he came out to repair the water line. He dug up the line and it was obvious that ****** had to be aware that that pipe was broken when he did the job ... the pipe was completely broken in half and the two ends were about 18" apart. One end had been pulled up almost to the surface and laterally away from the other. There is no way ****** could have been unaware of the situation. The sprinkler specialist repaired the line and we tested that zone to be sure it was working. Well guess what, it still had no pressure. We walked around and found another place where water was bubbling out of the ground. This site was the same place where lines were broken in November when they came out for a diagnosis AND where ****** and the other worker were lying on the ground supposedly repairing a break after cleaning out the lateral lines. The sprinkler specialist dug down to the pipe and found that the two ends ****** had been working on did not even meet ... there was a gap between the two pipes.
Now, if it is Foster's policy to not fix breaks, that should have been pointed out prior to doing the job, especially since they had repaired pipes on a previous trip in November, which to me indicated that if lines were broken during the clean out job, they would be repaired. And one the day of the lateral line clean out ****** had asked me to turn off the breaker to the water wells so they could fix the breaks in the line, and he and the other worker had laid on the ground for a good long time on that March12 afternoon pretending to fix the break. it was highly unethical for him to lead me to believe that repairs had been made and advise that I should wait a few days to run the sprinkler system so the ground could dry out,. Since he obviously was knowingly leaving me with broken water lines, he could have at least told me about the breaks and marked where the breaks were so repairs could be made in a more timely and less costly manner. I certainly wouldn't have done hours of work on leveling and smoothing out the ruts and holes or wasted $50 worth of seeds by putting them out before I had a working sprinkler system.
This deceit is overwhelming evidence of a lack of ethics.
Initial Business Response
****** worked on the broken sprinkler lines and to his knowledge they were fixed before he covered them back up. He ask Ms. ******** to turn off the main water supply to fix the break, after he fixed the break he had her turn the water back on and seen no leaks before he covered it back up. Fosters is not responsible to fix broken sprinkler lines that are within 10 ft of the lateral lines,(this is a DEQ requirement), which Ms. ********'s were. ****** should have let Ms. ******** know the first time he was there that she was in violation of code. He was not trying to pull a fast one by telling her to not turn on her sprinklers he was concerned about the drain field being over saturated, therefore causing her septic system not to work. We stand behind our employees judgements, however we also like to make sure our customers are happy. We are willing to reimburse Ms. ******** $106 for the seeds and her labor.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
So which of the two opposing stories are you sticking with, (a) ****** "fixed sprinkler lines before he covered them back up", or (b) he didn't fix them because they were near lateral lines? It can't be both!
If you go with option (a), then that is an out and out lie. They did repair one break in a water line going to a water spigot. But there were TWO breaks in sprinkler system lines , one being about 2" away from the broken water line going to the water spigot and the other about 40' away from that site. And turning the well breaker back on to see if there were leaks before covering the pipe up could not indicate a sprinkler line was fixed. You would have had to either turn on the sprinkler system to realize that fact, OR you could simply look at the two ends of a pipe and notice the blatantly obvious fact that they are not even touching each other...a real no-brainer! When the sprinkler repairman dug down to these pipes it was immediately plain to see that they were not even close to being intact, and there is no way ****** could have believed they were "fixed".
If you go with the (b) option, then you are implying that a DEQ requirements prevented them from repairing the breaks. This scenario is contrary to your above mentioned statement that he "fixed the sprinkler lines before he covered them back up." Furthermore, wouldn't you think the right thing to do in this case would have been to advise me they weren't fixing the two obviously broken sprinkler lines and marked where the breaks were so the sprinkler repairman could have more easily found them? Instead, he just told me not to run the sprinkler for a few days. He was not "trying to pull a fast one"? Really?
And why did he wait an entire week after I first called to report the sprinkler didn't work before calling me back? Could that be because he was waiting to be sure my check had cleared the bank? Your declaration of support for ******'s judgment, as well as the rest of your incoherent response, is a testament to your own lack of ethics. My primary concern that other potential customers need to know of your deceitful practices overshadows your offer to reimburse me $106 to clear your conscience (and the complaint). I do not accept your response.
Final Business Response
By DEQ requirements sprinkler lines are not supposed to be within 10 ft of lateral lines. If we are digging up lateral lines to clean them and we hit them, although not required to fix them we will try. There is no guarantee that the problem will be fixed. To our employees knowledge the sprinkler lines were working when he left. We will send the customer a check in the amount of $248, we have had a A+ standing with the BBB for the past 41 years and we are not out to deceive anyone. It is unfortunate that this customer was not satisfied, for that we are sorry. We hope that this will resolve this issue as it is time consuming and there appears to be no resolution that will appease the customer.
Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This provider continually denies knowledge of broken lines when workers departed yet there is no way they could have been unaware of the dismal situation they were leaving. This is extremely deceitful and future potential customers should be aware of their lack of honesty.