Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Roto-Rooter's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Roto-Rooter has 340 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Roto-Rooter

  2125 Montana Ave Cincinnati, OH 45211-2741

• 

  Roto-Rooter Plumbing & Water Cleanup

  3603 Metro Pkwy San Antonio, TX 78247

• 

  Roto-Rooter Plumbing & Water Cleanup

  12034 Exit 5 Pkwy Fishers, IN 46037

  
• 

  Roto Rooter

  220 Demeter St East Palo Alto, CA 94303

• 

  RR Plumbing Roto-Rooter

  280 Meredith Ave Staten Island, NY 10314

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/14/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Roto Rooter was hired on June 18 2025 to perform water cleanp. When removing the plastic sheeting they installed - they damaged the wall paper around the case opening in the formal dining. Their sheeting pulled off the top layer of the wall paper. - see pictures. In addition they pulled off paint in the kitchen from the door frame.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/14/2025

  Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are sorry to hear that the customer experienced damage to their wallpaper. While we understand their frustration. Roto Rooter cannot accept responsibility for this issue.  

   

  We appreciate the opportunity to respond and regret any inconvenience the customer has experienced.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/16/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. ROTO Rooter has agree to pay $1,500.00 to resolve this claim. A check will be mailed to me within 14days per Doug C*******.
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  ***** ******
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/13/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Date: 7/10/25
  Amount paid: 17143.12
  
  Hello,
  
  I hope you had a great weekend! I originally contacted Roto-Rooter for plumbing services, which I paid for with no issues or complaints.
  
  Following that, I was informed by your team that our home required water damage restoration. The salesperson assured me that all expenses would be fully covered by my insurance and that I “didn’t need to worry about anything.” Based on that clear understanding, I agreed to proceed. I was told the work would take 3–4 days, but the crew stayed for 5.
  
  Now, I am facing a $2,714.52 discrepancy between what Roto-Rooter charged ($19,857.64) and what my insurance approved ($17,143.12). I have already paid the full insurance amount that was sent to me. The insurance insists that some aspects of the service were unnecessary or excessive, and is refusing to adjust further.
  
  I understand that there can sometimes be discrepancies between the insurance estimate and expectations on your end, but I hope you understand how stressful this event is when we complied with all the instructions from the start. Since I was told all the expenses would be covered by insurance and I already paid the full estimate, I hope you can resolve this case fairly and amicably.
  
  Thank you for your time and understanding.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/14/2025

  We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the complaint submitted by our customer regarding the balance due of $2,714.52 on their recent water restoration project.
  First and foremost, we are glad to hear the customer was satisfied with the initial plumbing services provided. Regarding the water restoration work, we understand how stressful these situations can be, especially when insurance coverage and scope approvals become complex.
  After reviewing the account, our records indicate that our water restoration services were performed professionally and in alignment with industry standards. The original scope of work was based on conditions at the property and the need to mitigate water damage thoroughly to avoid further issues such as mold growth. The final invoice totaled $19,857.64, and we have received $17,143.12 from the customer, which matches the amount issued by their insurance company.
  It’s important to note that while our representative communicated that the work was expected to be covered by insurance, the final determination of coverage lies solely with the insurance carrier. Unfortunately, we have not received any revised scope or justification from the insurance company for the $2,714.52 that remains unpaid. Several elements of the work were flagged by the insurer as non-reimbursable, despite our efforts to provide documentation supporting the necessity of those items.
  On July 14, 2025, we contacted the customer by phone to explain the situation and advised them that further resolution requires their active involvement in reopening the conversation with their insurance provider. We expressed our willingness to work with the insurance company to clarify the scope of work performed and recover the remaining balance. However, unless the insurance carrier adjusts their position, the outstanding balance of $2,714.52 remains the customer's responsibility under the terms of our agreement.
  We understand the customer’s frustration and do not take these matters lightly. Our goal remains to resolve this matter fairly and amicably. We are committed to cooperating with the customer and their insurance carrier should they re-engage with us to review the denied charges. However, if we are unable to obtain reimbursement for the outstanding balance, we may have no choice but to proceed with formal collection efforts.
  We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing our response.
  Sincerely,

  Don S********
  General Manager
  Roto-Rooter ****** ****

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/20/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  

  Responding so I can keep this case open until we reach a resolution. This week, we went to our insurance agent’s office and provided them with the documents and invoice, so hopefully we will receive a response from the adjuster soon. There are two key points I would like to clarify for the record:
  

  
  1. Right after we received the initial plumbing services, a Roto-Rooter salesperson arrived and insisted on beginning water restoration services. We specifically asked what would happen if our insurance issued a different determination. We were assured — clearly and directly — that there would be no issue, and that Roto-Rooter would accept whatever the insurance offered. This assurance was misleading. Had we not been told this, we would have worked directly with our insurance provider instead. Based on our research, this kind of misrepresentation appears to be a recurring issue, as documented in numerous other BBB complaints. 
  
  2. Toward the end of his pitch, the salesperson became increasingly aggressive. He shoved his tablet toward me, rushed us through the agreement process, and did not allow us to read the terms. In fact, when we paused to read the text, he physically moved the tablet in a way that made it impossible to do so. At no point were the details explained. He clearly implied that immediate acceptance was the only option. This type of coercion was unreasonable and gave us no opportunity to consult with our insurance or consider alternative services. Unfortunately, this kind of interaction also appears to be common, as reflected in other complaints reported to the BBB.

  
  Currently, our insurance has paid over 86% of the invoice. As mentioned, we have sent the invoice and documentation to our insurance agent, who is following up with the adjuster. I am hopeful we can reach a proper resolution here.

  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  **** **
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/21/2025

  To Whom It May Concern,
  We appreciate the customer’s continued communication and remain committed to resolving this matter professionally. However, we must address several inaccuracies in their most recent response and reiterate our position.
  1. Misrepresentation Allegation
  The customer claims that our representative guaranteed full insurance coverage and stated that “Roto-Rooter would accept whatever the insurance offered.” This assertion directly contradicts the signed Water Mitigation Agreement. The document, which the customer signed and initialed, clearly states:
  “We have not made any representations to you about whether your insurance will cover some or all of our charges, and you are ultimately responsible for paying us for the Services, whether or not you have insurance.”
  This clause is not hidden or buried—it is part of the initial disclosure, and their initials confirm acknowledgment. Additionally, our agreement allows us to invoice the insurance carrier as a convenience, but it also reinforces that the customer is ultimately responsible for any unpaid balance.
  2. Coercion Allegation
  We take accusations of aggressive or deceptive conduct very seriously. Our representatives are trained to present agreements professionally and ethically. There is no credible evidence to support the claim that the customer was rushed, denied the opportunity to review the contract, or forced into signing. The customer had full control over signing the document and initialing specific disclosures.
  It is also worth noting that the customer allowed our team to complete the entire project over multiple days without raising any objections about process or consent during the service period.
  3. Current Status
  The total invoiced amount for services rendered was $19,857.64. The customer has paid $17,143.12, which reflects the amount covered by their insurance provider. The remaining $2,714.52 remains outstanding. This is not a dispute over quality of work—it is a billing gap between our documented scope and what the insurer chose to reimburse. Despite this, the customer acknowledged in their initial complaint that they were informed discrepancies may occur.
  We have contacted the customer directly, advised them to follow up with their insurance carrier, and offered to cooperate with the adjuster. At this point, we are still awaiting an updated response from the insurance company, and the customer has confirmed they recently submitted documentation. We hope this will lead to a fair resolution.
  Final Position
  We are not trying to send this account to collections. We have made good-faith efforts to resolve this amicably and remain open to continued communication. However, if the insurance company denies further payment and the customer refuses to satisfy their balance, we may have no choice but to pursue formal collection measures as outlined in the signed agreement.
  We sincerely hope the customer and their insurance company can resolve the scope discrepancy promptly. We will continue to participate in that process in good faith.
  

  Sincerely,

  
  Don S********
  General Manager
  Roto-Rooter ****** ****
  ###-###-####

  **********************

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/24/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  

  
  

  As mentioned before, I would like to keep this case open until a resolution is reached. I am hopeful that we are close. I would also like to thank the BBB for keeping us connected. The issues within this document only further support my point, and I am beginning to understand the source of the discrepancies in the estimates. There are two key issues:
  
  
  1. The document explicitly mentions “1800p” as part of the estimated billing range. What does “p” mean in this context? In currency, “p” refers to British pence — for example, 100p equals one British pound — but why would that terminology be used here? Any rational person would question this if they had been allowed to READ the document before agre. Instead, we were forced to scroll straight to the end without being able to review any of the numbers. This only reinforces the issues outlined in my previous response. The salesperson actively and deliberately hid the numbers and text, directing us to simply agree to it at the bottom. Do you honestly think anyone would accept a potential bill for “1800p” without asking what that even means?
  
  
  2. This is the most egregious point and it took multiple complaints to finally see this. The scope of work in the document (page 1) CLEARLY lists the affected rooms as:

  
  1. Kitchen
  2. Dining Room
  3. Living Room
  4. Basement

  
  There is NO mention of the bathrooms or laundry room in the document. The laundry room, in particular, is located on the OPPOSITE side of the house from where the damage occurred. At no point — in the document or otherwise — did we authorize Roto-Rooter to perform ANY work in the laundry room. It is no surprise, then, that our insurance denied repairs for that area. We are now out thousands of dollars in flooring repairs for a room that had NO damage. There was no water, no contamination, and no justification for any work in that area based on YOUR OWN document and estimates. So why did you tear out the ENTIRE flooring in that area? Why was water restoration work done? It is not remotely connected to the affected areas, and it is not mentioned in the scope of work in the document that YOU had us sign — a document that, as previously stated, we weren’t even allowed to properly review.

   

  I was cordial at the beginning of this process, and I still plan to be. However, we don’t appreciate being threatened with collections every single week when there are this many clear issues. All I’m asking is that you show a little humanity instead of trying to extract every single dollar from your customers. Let’s reach a mutual understanding here. Thank you.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/25/2025

  To Whom It May Concern,
  We appreciate the continued dialogue and the BBB’s role in helping both parties work toward a resolution.
  After reviewing the latest customer response, we remain unclear about the ultimate intent behind the complaint. While the concerns raised seem rooted in terminology and scope questions, they do not appear to dispute the fact that services were provided, that the insurance carrier covered the majority of the invoice, and that a remaining balance of $2,714.52 is still unpaid.
  To clarify:
  1. “1800p” Terminology
  The mention of “1800p” is likely a typographical or software-generated formatting issue—not a billing code or currency value. This notation appears nowhere on our final invoice or in the charges sent to the insurance company. If there is a specific line or section the customer would like explained further, we’re happy to do so. This formatting issue in no way invalidates the agreement or the services rendered.
  2. Scope of Work – Laundry Room
  The water mitigation agreement the customer signed is not a line-by-line scope document, but a general service authorization. The detailed scope of work, as billed to insurance, reflects the actual conditions observed on-site by our technicians. If work was performed in the laundry room, it was because water migration was observed or suspected in that area—a common occurrence in flood or leak situations.
  We are not able to speak to why the insurance carrier may have denied a portion of the work. However, it is standard practice to perform necessary mitigation across all potentially impacted areas to prevent mold growth or further damage. Our team does not act arbitrarily—our decisions are based on field conditions, IICRC standards, and liability mitigation.
  
  Our Position and Offer
  We stand behind the services rendered and the final invoice amount. That said, we are not looking to escalate this unnecessarily. Our goal is resolution—not conflict.
  We are open to a mutual compromise to put this matter to rest. If the customer is willing, we would consider a one-time settlement reduction of the remaining balance to split the difference, resolving the issue without further dispute or collection action. This would demonstrate goodwill on both sides.
  I will be out of the office on vacation until August 4, but if the customer is willing to pause discussions until then, I am happy to speak directly and work toward closure upon my return.
  If the customer prefers to resolve this sooner, Scott D********, our Water Restoration Manager, is available to speak on my behalf. He can be reached directly at ###-###-#### starting Monday.
  We appreciate the customer’s continued communication and hope to find a solution that works for all parties involved.
  Sincerely,
  Don S********
  General Manager

  Roto-Rooter ****** ****

  ###-###-####

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/05/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  1. The document you specifically had us sign contained this exact error, which, as mentioned before, you did not let us see. This was an error that any rational person would've questioned. 

  2. As stated previously, there was not a single drop of water damage in this room. If Roto-Rooter intended to perform work outside the original scope, that should have been documented in a revised scope of work. Instead, the work that was done clearly did not match the document — something any rational person can plainly see.

  Even after these egregious issues — where the water restoration service (not the initial plumbing work, which was fine) was clearly NOT performed as specified — we still paid the full amount based on the insurance estimate. The insurance has not yet responded regarding any further adjustments, and we will pay any additional amount they approve once they get back to us. Given the circumstances, I believe this is more than reasonable.

  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  **** **
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/14/2025

  Tell us whTo Whom It May Concern,
  We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this complaint and the continued involvement of the Better Business Bureau in facilitating communication.
  While we respectfully disagree with several of the allegations and interpretations presented by the customer, we understand this situation has been stressful. We maintain that our services were rendered appropriately, the agreement was valid and properly executed, and the insurance-related discrepancies are common in the water restoration industry.
  That said, in the interest of resolution and customer goodwill, we have decided to waive the remaining balance of $2,714.52 and will not pursue collections for this amount. We are making this adjustment voluntarily and consider the matter closed.
  We believe this is a fair and reasonable outcome, and we hope it brings closure to both parties.
  Sincerely,
  Don S********
  General Manager
  Roto-Rooter ****** ****

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/08/2025

  Type:Sales and Advertising Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Called them to schedule a FREE ESTIMATE for my water heater. They verified there would be NO CHARGE on their website and the representative I spoke to on the phone. When technician arrived, they said in order to get an estimate, a diagnostic (opening/inspection of the problem with the water heater) would need to be done to get an estimate. Technician informed the me the diagnostic is required every time and ‘FREE’ estimate is needed, but informed me the diagnostic is $189!! How is this a FREE ESTIMATE when I’m being charged a non-negotiable diagnostic charge of $189 to get the estimate. Technician said they can’t even inspect the unit without charging a diagnostic fee, which I was NOT told by the rep, nor does it state on the website. This is clearly FALSE ADVERTISING. If they’re going to advertise a ‘FREE ESTIMATE’, then I should pay $0 to get the estimate. Not have to pay a $189 diagnostic fee in order to get the estimate. Nothing of this sorts was mentioned ANYtime during my booking of the appointment.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/11/2025

  We do offer free estimates on our services. There is no charge for us to come to you and provide an estimate.

  In the case of a water heater, the diagnostic price is the free estimate. Should you decline the diagnostic service, you are not charged any fee. A diagnostic on a water heater allows us to determine what components may need to be replaced, which may be a more cost-effective option than replacement. We may initially offer a replacement estimate if the water heater has ruptured or is beyond its expected service life. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/07/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We called Roto Rooter (******* ** ###-###-####) on 6/15/2025 for a clogged toilet at my parent's house. The clogged also caused waste to backup into the adjacent shower drain. This toilet is located on the 1st floor in a new section of the house, but flushing toilets on the 2nd floor of the old section of the house would also cause waste to come up thru the shower drain in the 1st floor. On 6/16/2025 a plumber (Jose) arrived with Mike K**** (excavation field manager). We agreed to $1200 to snake the toilet drain. Jose removed the toilet and broke the mounting bolts in the process. They charge us to repair this. He also recommends replacing several valves. We followed his recommendations and pay for this additional work. Jose snakes the drain and manages to get 60' down the drain. The water goes down, but the toilet still flushed slowly. Mike recommends inserting a camera into the drain. We follow his recommendation, but he can only get his camera in 6'. He now tells my parents there is a solid obstruction that needs to be removed and writes a $12498 contract to excavate the floor. My parents are both 90+ years and are distressed as they cannot use any water. Note that earlier the plumber had passed this point where the camera was stuck. We asked Mike and Jose to snake the drain from the septic side, but they say it is not allowed. 6/17/205 Larry from Roto Rooter arrives to do an asbestos test. He removes a tile in a visible area instead of hidden. On 6/19/2025 we bring in a septic contractor. They find the clog right at the end of the drain and clear it. We call Mike to let them know the issue is resolved. They still charge us $1200 for the camera, which we never received the footage and $2100 for the asbestos test which we never saw the lab results. Note that the septic co inserted a camera from the septic side and found no obstructions where Mike said there was one. Roto Rooter also did not let us know that the floor would be damaged for the asbestos test.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/10/2025

  Dear Better Business Bureau Representative,
  
  Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We
  value all feedback and take customer concerns seriously.
  
  We have carefully reviewed the complaint submitted by
  ******* ****** regarding the charges incurred from the cancelled excavation.
  
  At Roto-Rooter, we strive to provide high-quality services
  and ensure customer satisfaction.
  
  We understand the customer’s frustration; however, as
  stated in our original signed contract with the customer a portion of the charges
  were due to testing that was completed. Due to this we are unable to issue a full
  refund. We are, however, happy to offer a partial refund of $1200 which is the camera inspection fee. If the customer is satisfied with this resolution we would be happy to issue that back on the credit card used.
  
  Thank you for your attention to this matter.
  
  Sincerely,
  Rebekah E******

  Roto-Rooter Services Company

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/07/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This is a follow-up to a previous complaint about Roto-Rooter.
  
  On 3/6/2025, we contacted Roto-Rooter (RR) to clear a clogged sewer line at our *** ******* **** ****** ***** ** property.
  
  Technician discovered a blockage that his snake couldn’t clear and had to video the pipe to assess the issues. The camera could not get past the same blockage; therefore, RR recommended the floor be removed to access and repair what they deemed to be a broken pipe for $8K. They did that, which was the subject of the complaint where they cut the supporting floor joists without our consent. Ultimately, after our BBB complaint, the floor joists were repaired, but not properly.
  
  On 5/6, the pipe was backing up again. This time, RR came and assessed a different problem which meant the line to the street needed to be replaced. We asked the technician, Sherwyn W***, if RR would do the work and if they would credit the $8K from the job that didn’t fix the problem. He said yes, and said he’d work on a quote.
  
  Several days and emails went by before he responded that they didn’t want the job, and if they did, it would cost $50K (sent on 5/20,25, not 5/6 as shown on the quote). We asked for a formal quote, but only received a scribbled document with no price. I asked Sherwyn for a formal quote, but he stopped replying.
  
  Therefore, we hired a new contractor because our sewer was leaking. Total cost for what RR estimated to be $50K, turned out to be far less at $23K. Further, the new contractor included a new water line and main shut-off valve.
  
  Roto-Rooter damaged the sub-floor, didn’t repair it properly, and charged us $8K for a job that didn’t fix the issue, and then they disappeared, so we had to pay for the same assessment services completed by RR, plus the cost of sewer main replacement that RR failed to identify.
  
  We’re requesting BBB’s help in recovering the $8K lost to RR for a job they didn’t do correctly and abandoned us to forcing us to pay the same to the new contractor.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/11/2025

  
  
  Brian called us once at 8:59 AM while we were not available. We’ve tried at least 10 times to return the call, but can’t even get a voice mail to leave a message. Therefore, the complaint remains unresolved. 
  
  Thank you!

  Business Response

  Date: 07/11/2025

  called customer to resolve issue with no response from customer. Will update when speaking to customer

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/14/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, reasons for rejection are included below.

  
  

  My wife received a call from Brian at Roto Rooter on Friday, July 11, 2025, with a cryptic voicemail. This was during my wife's commute, and as soon as she reviewed the voicemail and informed me, I tried to call Brian repeatedly throughout the day Friday. I've tried again several times today, 7/14/2025, with no response. 

  
  The invoice is in my wife's name, but I filed the complaint. My number is ###-###-####. I will be in and out throughout the day on business, but I'd appreciate a call to move ahead with resolution. 
  
  Thank you!
  
  **** *******
  
  
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/16/2025

  Spoke to ** ******* 7/15 and asked for receipts and pictures from company that provided the work done so we can determine corrective action. Customer advised to give him a few days to get everything together.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/28/2025

  Please see the additional files provided to Roto Rooter on 7/18/2025 at their request. 
  
  Kindly let me know if you require additional information. 
  
  Regards, 
  
  ******* *******
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/31/2025

  resolved customer issue, customer is ok at this time

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/30/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I was intended to get only a one time-service fee of getting my drainage fixed via "snake" process. I had a discount coupon for it and they applied it. However, it was not known to me that they also signed me up for their 6month protection plan without my notice or disclosure of the protection plan "product". I have tried to call them to cancel within their 3 day Grace period, but did not answer . The work was done on May 2nd Friday, and I tried to call them before the 3 day grace period ends. They did not answer their calls nor the person responsible within their financial department wanted to answer. This was when I tried to call them 3 days in a row. Now I am somehow responsible for paying over $1800 when the service that was done shouldn't even be remotely close to $1000.

  Business Response

  Date: 07/02/2025

  Contacted customer with 3 attempts and left voicemails. Will try again also including an email. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/30/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Roto Rooter is charging me for the work that were not done because they made me sign the contact for more than $30K.
  
  I was informed by Roto Rooter, who said they can represent me with the HOA on my behalf. She assured me that the issue was 100% the HOA’s fault and that everything should be covered. However, they also stated they couldn’t assist me unless I signed the form.I made it clear that I did not want any work to begin unless we were certain that all work would be covered by the HOA. The invoice they sent includes charges for work that was never completed and was never authorized by me. I clearly stated from the beginning that all work required prior approval from the HOA.  As you mentioned, after you or ****** spoke with the HOA, Ryan refused to sign the form to become an assigned vendor because you did not agree with their terms. They should have informed me immediately and made it clear that you could no longer represent me, so I could have explored other options. Unfortunately, you failed to do so. Instead, you claim to have continued providing services that I neither authorized nor was aware of—services that were also unnecessary, especially considering the work now needs to be redone. In any basic business transaction, the services provided must be acknowledged by the customer, and any goods or results must be properly delivered. This home still requires extensive mitigation, despite the work you claim to have completed. What was the justification for performing that work without my consent? I will not pay twice for work that was neither necessary nor authorized

  Business Response

  Date: 07/02/2025

   I want to address your
  concerns directly and provide clarity on several key points regarding the
  services we rendered and the agreement you signed.
  To begin, the Water Mitigation Agreement you executed clearly
  authorized Roto-Rooter to begin emergency services. That authorization—combined
  with the urgency of preventing further damage—prompted our rapid response and
  the deployment of critical equipment, including dehumidifiers and air movers.
  Equipment was placed on your property only after the fire sprinkler line was
  shut off at the main valve outside, marking the appropriate time to begin
  mitigation.
  Regarding your mention of HOA responsibility: It's important to
  understand that no contractor—Roto-Rooter included—can guarantee HOA or
  insurance coverage (as outlined in Sections 4 and 5 of the agreement). Our team
  is not authorized to make that determination. A reasonable homeowner concerned
  about liability would typically consult their HOA or insurer before signing
  an emergency work authorization. Furthermore, once we reviewed your HOA’s
  preferred vendor package and realized we could not proceed under their terms,
  we ceased all further work and did not bill for any additional services beyond
  what was already performed—making this argument about unauthorized work
  inapplicable.
  As for the equipment charges: Daily billing for items like fans
  and dehumidifiers is standard across the mitigation industry. These units were
  placed and logged appropriately. Even while the leak remained active for a
  short period, drying efforts needed to commence to prevent structural damage
  and mold growth—an approach backed by the IICRC S500 standard, which governs
  professional mitigation practices.
  Additionally, Roto-Rooter does not charge hidden fees for
  holidays, nights, or weekends, consistent with the messaging on our website. We
  also provided a good-faith estimate for the scope of work—while not broken-down
  line by line, it served as a transparent reference. Our final invoice reflects
  a total that is approximately $13,500 less than that original
  estimate.
  I encourage you to review the IICRC S500 standard,
  available publicly online, which reinforces why timely mitigation and
  industry-standard charges for drying equipment and labor are both necessary and
  appropriate.
  We’re open to working toward a resolution, but we cannot void
  a valid invoice for services rendered under a signed agreement. 
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/02/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, reasons for rejection are included below.

  
  

  1. Limited Authorization
  While I did sign the Water Mitigation Agreement, it was done under emergency pressure without a full understanding of the scope, costs, or implications—especially regarding HOA and insurance compatibility. Signing an agreement does not mean I authorized indefinite or non-compliant work. Once it became clear that your company could not meet the HOA’s vendor requirements, further work should have been halted immediately, not partially performed and later billed.
  2.  Equipment Charges Disputed
  I dispute the daily charges for drying equipment, especially during a period when active leakage was still occurring. Deploying such equipment while water was still entering the property was ineffective and arguably premature. The IICRC S500 standard supports timely and appropriate action—but not redundant or misapplied services.  Especially, the charges of the services that were not actually done is not legally appropriate such as the area that were not affected, including bedroom 2, bedroom 3, ground floor, kitchen.  Current vendor ****** Restoration has completed the work of the real mitigation and confirm those area do not need any work done.  
  3.  Responsibility and Oversight
  It is unreasonable to suggest that a homeowner in an emergency is expected to fully vet insurance and HOA implications before authorizing urgent mitigation. The responsibility to clarify compatibility with third-party coverage lies partly with the contractor, especially when vendor packages and compliance are central to the claim.
  4.  Invoice Accuracy and Proportionality
  Although you cite that the final invoice is lower than the initial estimate, the issue is not the discount—it's the validity of the charges themselves. Unauthorized or ineffective work should not be billed, regardless of discounts applied.  Refer to the original contract which supposed to include, provide protection to prevent cross contamination, remove and dispose of damanged flooring materials (carpet, vinyl, laminate, ext), moving/cleaning/doisposal of contents, apply antimicrobial.  None of these were performed.  You need to review what was actually done.  You cannot charge someone for things that were not done especially all the works you claimed you did were completely done again.
  5.  Lack of communication concerning your worker’s access to the unit. You previously stated that your worker was there daily but was unable to enter. However, I’ve already provided a letter from my tenant that outlines what actually occurred.
  At no point did your worker attempt to notify me, ******, or anyone else that they were having trouble accessing the unit. I never received any messages or calls indicating there was an issue. Additionally, when I spoke with ******, she was completely unaware that this was happening.
  Please clarify why no effort was made to communicate these access issues, and explain the discrepancy between your statement and what my tenant reported. You have not yet contacted my tenant which I confirmed on 6/30/25.  
  

  
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  **** ****
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/10/2025

  *** **** had direct communication with RR management and discussed the issues that were present, including the tenant's unplugging equipment and not allowing mitigation team the entrance into the property. We discussed the source(s) of loss and provided video evidence to help support his claim. *** **** understood his responsibility with the contract and signed as required, the belief that signing under an emergency eliminates responsibility is not reasonable as nearly all water mitigation jobs require emergency service.

  Roto-Rooter ensures that every water mitigation job has IICRC certified technicians which is not a requirement by law, and not a standard held by other mitigation companies. To insinuate that a competitor would determine affected areas in contrast to our inspection is an opinion and not fact.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/27/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This is letter I wrote to Whom It May Concern:
  
  
  I am writing to formally raise a major concern regarding recent plumbing services performed at my residence located at ** ***** ***** *****, Connecticut, by your technician D***.
  
  
  
  We have used Rooter Rooter services for many years and, until now, found your technicians generally reliable. Although I may have appeared satisfied with D***’s work in the past, I must now express serious concerns regarding the quality and thoroughness of the recent service , June 9, 2025, performed at this property at cost of $1760 .00.
  
  
  
  Following the visit by D***, we engaged a highly reputable septic service company to inspect and pump our tank. Their inspection revealed that water levels were excessively high and not properly discharging into the pump system, indicating a clear blockage or failure in the outflow line . Additionally, there were obvious signs of clogs in the line still. . Despite this, Dave did never checked that the system had resumed free flow into the septic tank before completing the job. He stated : "we are good to go for sometime." Respectfully, we were far from good to go.
  
  Also, Router Rooter remediation's team chose not to do cleanup thou I was I was told since the job was too small and they needed break panel walls , without replacing them, to make the job worthwhile .
  
  
  
  In hindsight, and within 10 days , it is apparent that the snaking was not performed thoroughly or with sufficient follow-through. The failure to verify that the system was flowing properly after the service resulted in the ongoing blockage, which required further professional remediation at additional cost and inconvenience.
  
  
  
  Given this, I am requesting that Rooter Rooter conduct a formal review of the service performed at my property. This is formal statement of this deficiency and a lack of consideration , given service was not performed.
  
  ** ***** **
  
  ***** , Ct *****
  
  
  *****

  Business Response

  Date: 07/01/2025

  On June 9, 2025, the customer contacted Roto-Rooter for a plumbing issue.
  Our technician cabled the main sewer line from the crawl space to the septic
  tank, removing root blockages and restoring proper flow.
  In addition, the second-floor bathtub drain was
  cleared of significant hair and buildup. Both drains were tested afterward and
  confirmed to be flowing properly.
  A video inspection of the line revealed that the
  PVC section was completely clear. However, root intrusion was observed in other
  parts of the pipe. The technician reviewed the video footage with the customer
  and recommended a spot repair, along with the installation of a clean-out for
  easier future access and to help prevent further root intrusion.
  Please note that Roto-Rooter does not perform
  septic system work. We advised the customer to have their septic tank emptied
  and inspected by a qualified septic service provider.
  Attached is a copy of the invoice signed and
  paid by the customer.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/12/2025

  *********
  Septic Report for:
  ** ***** **. *****, CT
  **** **********
  License Number: ******
  ** ****** ** *****, CT *****
  ###-###-####
  *********************
  ? 6/19/25: Showed up at 18 River Road to check the toilets as there was a gurgling noise in toilets as well as kitchen sink.
  ? Dug up cess pool inlet main line and found the line was clogged solid with toilet paper and roots in the line. The line was 12" below surface in sandy material.
  ? Line is in good condition, but has clear holes where roots enter. **** needs to install clean out fitting with hydraulie cement to surface. This will prevent roots from entering inlet baffle.
  ? NOTE: If rooter company that came out to snake the main line dug up the inlet and did the same work as **** it would have fixed the clog in the main line. They left the roots and the clog in the line and did not solve any problems/issues with the clog in the line.
  ? The only way to start clearing a clogged main line is to start at the inlet of the main line.
  Working backwards as the rooter company did, doesn't work/resolve 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/24/2025

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  This disputes Invoice # ******** for June 9, 2025 services. The $10,500 contract followed a $743 sewer clearing (June 8).
  
  The contract covered trench excavation, concrete work, pipe replacement, hydro jetting, and backfilling. Roto-Rooter was to handle permits.
  
  Work on June 9 didn't match the contract; concrete and foundation work were omitted. Instead, a trench was dug for pipe access/replacement, and hydro-jetting occurred.
  
  Documentation from Jon B***** (###-###-####) was unclear. His manager, Andrew L** (###-###-####), offered more services or a $2,020 credit, which was declined due to missing documentation and scope discrepancies. The $8,480 invoice followed.
  
  The invoice amount is disputed because the work doesn't justify the charge.
  
  Requests:
  
  1. Itemized explanation of June 9 work.
  2. Additional $2,000 credit, totaling $4,020.
  
  As a returning customer, a fair resolution is expected.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/26/2025

  A detailed email was sent to the customer June 25, 2025, explaining the billing for services provided and offering options for a fair resolution.   A contact email and direct phone number for Roto-Rooter's local office were also provided.  As of now, RR has not yet received a response.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/21/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In late September 2023, Roto Rooter came to clear sewer back up. Their technician ended up suggesting water restoration and he called another team to give me an estimate. The team that came used two tactics to force me to sign paperwork.
  
  1. They said there was already mold which is very dangerous especially for my kids.
  2. That I don't even have to worry about paying because insurance will definitely pay for the repairs.
  
  Roto Rooter began tearing down the basement walls after tests confirmed that there was mold. They brought their dehumidifiers to dry out the moisture in the basement. We contacted the insurance guided by the Roto Rooter technician team lead. However, insurance refused to pay. This is when Roto Rooter informed me that they will not continue with the work of water restoration. They also said I was going to pay for the "work" they have already done which is tearing down the walls of the basement and the use of the service for their dehumidifiers.
  
  Work was not completed and I was charged $9,500.00.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/27/2025

  We attempted to reach the customer, but have not been able to connect.  This has been referred to ESP for collections due to non payment for services rendered.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/27/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, reasons for rejection are included below.

   

  Please see attached the email I received and responded to,
  from Rebekah E****** (************************). I have not had a response back
  since my response to Rebekah. Prior to the email, I had missed a call on Sunday
  June 22, 2025, from someone who left a message to call back. He said his name
  was Mark and he was a Roto Rooter water restoration manager. I immediately
  called Mark back but got no response. I called the next day on Monday June 23, 2025,
  but there was no response. As I typed this response, I called Mark again and
  yet again no response. I have the call logs.
  
  Also note that my original complaint stated that work was never completed. The
  response from the business about my complaint states a lack of payment from me
  which I already addressed in my original complaint. Please refer to that
  message.  
  
  Roto Rooter sent my account to the collections agency who in
  turn filed a law suit demanding payment of $9,500.00 plus interest and legal
  fees which add up to almost $12,000.00, in addition to the collection agency
  putting a lease on my property. In other for the collections agency to dismiss
  the lawsuit and remove the lease, I had to agree to pay $500 a month.
  I'm reiterating here that work was never completed, and my
  house is currently not fit for residence due to the sewer still flooding my
  basement. My wife and I and our five kids, whose ages range from a 4-month-old
  baby, a 3-year-old, an 8-year-old, an 11-year-old and a 13-year-old. We have
  been bouncing from an ****** to ****** since we vacated the house until we
  finally found a place to rent which costs $3,000 a month while still paying
  $1,286.60 monthly mortgage on a house, we cannot currently live in.
  I have also paid $8,000.00 to someone to reinstall and
  repair the drywall that Roro Rooter cut out as part of the water restoration
  but abruptly abandoned when my insurance refused to pay. When I asked them if
  they could at lease repair that I was told the business will not continue any
  work. 

  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  ******* ******
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/07/2025

  I spoke to *** ******.  Roto Rooter does not provide rebuild services, only mitigation. The insurance company declined the claim that was filed with them which makes the customer contractually obligated to pay Roto Rooter the balance.  *** ****** states that he was initially, verbally, told that the insurance would take care of everything.  Our contract clearly states that if the insurance(or 3rd party) does not pay, for whatever reason, the home owner is responsible for payment.  the customer signed all contracts to authorize for work to be done.  This is the case here.  We completed our work based on our contract and payment is still owed.