BBB Business Review

What is a BBB Business Review?

Consumer Complaints

BBB Accredited Business since 10/01/1992

Mr Rooter Plumbing of Seattle

Phone: (206) 763-4959Fax: (425) 226-1137

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Customer Complaints Summary

4 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 3 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Problems with Product / Service4
Advertising / Sales Issues0
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints4

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (4)BBB Closure Definitions
06/30/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
On 2/26/14 I had Mr. Rooter service my plumbing. They had to access my main pipe line; therefore, I did sign a contract with them. Unfortunately, they did not fully do the job indicated on the contract. I discovered they had used materials that are illegal, including they needed to submit a permit from the city of Kirkland for digging down to the sewer line. I received an electronic message requesting I submit a survey, which I did. I received a phone call from Mr. Rooter asking why I was so dissatisfied, I told her of my findings and she abruptly told me that the general manager will call me. I never received a phone call which I waited for. A week ago I received a copy of the proposal/contract including a bill for the work that was not completed.
On Monday, I talked with a BBB associate on the phone, and I was advised to send in a complaint letter (I was not able to down load the pdf from BBB website). I received a phone call today from Mr. Rooter requesting I pay the bill or they will put a lean on my house.

Desired Settlement
The proposal was not fulfilled; therefore, I feel I should pay $900.00 rather than $2,190.00.
They did not have a permit for the side sewer,
nor back fill the excavation, the 2 way clean out is illegal including the box and cover over the clean out. As well as, they charged me for jackhammer my mudroom which they did not do.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
****** *******

Business Response
Mr. Rooter's technician responded to customers' sewer backup on 2/26/2014 and found the main sewer line to be backed up upon arrival. Technician attempted to clear the line from access in the house. Technician found issue in sewer line and called out his supervisor to take a look at the issue. Mr. Rooter video inspected the sewer line at that point and located the problem under a concrete floor in the house. Mr. Rooter then gave the customer a proposal to repair the line and install a cleanout. The proposal included jackhammer of concrete in the customer's house in order to gain access to the sewer line but did not include any repair of the concrete. The Mr Rooter Underground crew arrived on-site and started to excavate the line outside of the house. As they excavated they determined that they could tunnel under the concrete slab with some additional labor and would save the cost of repairing the concrete inside the home, not to mention the inconvenience associated with having a hole inside the home. At this point the repair was done with standard PVC pipe and fittings. Mr. Rooter also installed a 2 way cleanout to access the sewer line from outside the house for future maintenance. The underground crew left the site at the end of the day. The next day the customer called to say that the city told her that we had connected to the wrong line and that the sewer was not tied in correctly. Mr. Rooter sent out the underground manager to assess the job. Mr. Rooter ran video camera down line from the cleanout in home and determined that the sewer line was tied in correctly and that the city was incorrect. This was later verified by the city. At the same time of verifying the proper connection, Mr. Rooter found that the whole sewer line was in bad shape and in need of replacement. Mr. Rooter gave customer an estimate to replace the rest of the line and customer informed Mr. Rooter she would get back with us the following day. At this point Mr. Rooter had not obtained a permit from the city due to the fact that we were unsure of the scope of work. The customer did not get back in touch with Mr. Rooter the following day and did not return several messages in an attempt to confirm what would be done from this point forward. When Mr. Rooter did finally get in contact with the customer she explained that she was going to have us do the additional work but was waiting for a check from her sister as she had to borrow the money. Weeks went by with attempts by Mr. Rooter to contact the customer with no response. When the customer finally did contact Mr. Rooter she had stated that she had already had another company do the additional work and that she felt she should not have to pay the $2,190.00 bill due to the fact that we did not jackhammer her floor in her house. The Underground Manager spoke with the customer in regards to the circumstances surrounding why the floor was not jack hammered. He explained that additional labor was performed by our crew in order to save the customer the hassle and expense of repairing the concrete. He saw an opportunity to not save Mr. Rooter any time or money, but save the customer time and money and decided it would be in her best interest to forgo the jack hammering of the floor. The customer stated that she felt that was not right and that she wanted to hear from the operations manager. The operations manager contacted her back and discussed the work that was completed and the reason for not jack hammering the floor. In an attempt to ensure customer satisfaction the operations manager asked the customer what her thoughts were in regards to the change in work and why it would change the price. He explained that jack hammering of the floor would take the same or less amount of time as the tunneling underneath the slab that was completed, and also leave her with additional expenses that were unnecessary. The customer stated that she wasn't sure what would be fair. In an effort of good faith and to ensure customer satisfaction the operations manager offered to reduce the bill down to $2,000.00, a discount of $190. The customer responded by saying let me check with a few people because I'm just not sure what to do from here and I will get back with you. After several days went by and no return phone call from the customer, the operations manager called and left several messages asking to please be contacted in order to resolve the issue. There was no response from the customer for several more days. The operations manager again called and left a message for the customer in an attempt to resolve the issue. Another offer of a price reduction bringing the price down to $1,850.00, a total savings of $340.00 on the original price, was offered on a voicemail with still no response. After a couple of weeks went by, the customer called and left a message stating that a check was in the mail. A check was received about a week later in the amount of $900.00 and now with complaints about not only the jack hammering of the floor but also that there was no permit, and that we had used the wrong material. Mr. Rooter had not obtained a permit from the city yet as stated in the contract due to the fact the customer kept putting us off and misleading us with information that a check was in the mail. At this point the other company doing the additional work had already performed there duties and backfilled our work so we were never given the proper information or opportunity to finish the project and make things right with the customer. The project however was 95% complete, as all that was remaining was an inspection and backfill to complete the original work order. It should be noted that the only reason we didn't complete this portion was that it made no sense as at that point the customer still need to complete the additional work. Additionally the customer had the advantage of already having the work excavated by us which would have saved her money on the additional work quoted by the other company. In an effort to get clarification on the materials used, Mr. Rooter spoke with one of the public works officials at the city of Kirkland. He informed Mr. Rooter that there is nothing in the side sewer standards that state that a 2 way cleanout can not be used or that any material that was used was incorrect. He gave us the phone number of the inspector *** ****** whom we have called on 4 occasions and left messages in order to verify this information with him as well. To this date, June 4, 2014, we have not received a call back from ** ****** Mr. Rooter feels the customer's best interests were considered in every step of this project specifically by saving the customer money and not jack hammering the floor. The customer would not let us finish our job properly and would not communicate with Mr Rooter properly to completely execute the proposal of work to be completed. Although not required, in good faith, and as previously stated, we have proposed a reduction in the bill from $2,190.00 down to $1,850.00 but have not had a response from the customer.

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
* I contracted Mr. Rooter to access my line to ensure there weren't any blockage.

* They discovered that jackhammering the mudroom was not necessary and they changed the contract. They manually excavated outside of the property and discovered the sewer line was tied incorrectly (the sewer line was visible; therefore, tunneling under the concrete slab is not true). We put a hold on the project until I could resolve what to do with Kirkland Public Works; therefore, the backfill was not completed. The same day *** *** ***** (field manager) who drew up the assessment proposal came to my house, and I addressed that jackhammering was not fulfilled. He stated *** the underground manager would arrive the following day and take care of it and left immediately

* Should I receive a rebate for jackhammering or does the manual labor equal out as not clearly stated on the contract as well as the backfill?

* I brought attention to Kirkland Public Works of the material Mr. Rooter had used and they confirmed their methodology is not legal.

* Supposedly Mr. Rooter offered me $1,850.00 to resolve the issue; unfortunately, I do not have a record of this.

* Mr. Rooter's chain of communication and time line of events are not entirely true (I have obtained reports of communication).

* I'm displeased with Mr. Rooter's extreme harsh behavior towards me, as well as threats of attaching a lien on my property.

* I want to be responsible for this, and I intend to pay for their services.

* I hope that BBB will encourage Mr. Rooter and I to come up with a compromise on this complaint.


Final Business Response
Mr. Rooter believes as previously stated that all work was done in good faith and any changes to the initial contract have been explained. We are willing to reduce the bill down an additional $100 to $1,750.00 from the original $2,190.00 a savings of $440.00 to the customer. If the customer does not see this offer as a fair compromise we are more than willing to work through the BBB's arbitration process.

Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

06/02/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
I complained about their excessive charges in relation to the work done and we agreed to a $400 refund, plus they were to email me a receipt. It has been seven days and so far I was refunded $361.86 and even after leaving a voice mail to *** ********** there I still have no receipt.
I still feel I overpaid for day one, in which the first hour had their crew get their jet hose caught in my lawn drainage system (for $800) and day two which cost me $1500 for them to come out to dig up my yard to retrieve their hose and finish the unclogging my drain pipe.
I'm beyond urn satisfied, I'm sill livid

Desired Settlement
I would like the remainder of the $400 we agreed to, $38.14 and a receipt for the services.

Business Response
Mr. Rooter Plumbing contacted customer **** ****** on Thursday May 15, 2014 in regards to his concern. We were able to refund the $38.14 which we agreed upon and emailed over the receipt that he requested. Customer is satisfied at this time.

Consumer Response
My account was accredited for the amount requested, but still have not received a receipt. I will try to contact the company again.

11/30/2012Problems with Product / Service
09/04/2014Problems with Product / Service

Industry Comparison| Chart

Plumbing Contractors, Sewer Pipe, Filters - Liquid, Copper, Sewage Disposal Systems, Pipe, Leak Detection, Inspection Devices - Industrial, Grease Traps, Pipe & Valve Fitters - Gas, Pipe & Valve Fitters, Water Main Contractors, Water Heaters - Repairing, Sewer Inspection, Sewer Contractors, Plumbing Drains & Sewer Cleaning, Plumbing - Renovation & Repair, Piping Contractors, Pipe Thawing, Pipe Pushing, Pipe Line Contractors, Pipe Inspection, Sump Pump Contractors, Boilers - Repair & Cleaning

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.

X

What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.

X

BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.