ComplaintsforMitchCo Foundation Repair

• Initial Complaint

  02/23/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On 8 March 2022, I hired MitchCo (Invoice: Job# 1 of 1) to remove the water from my backyard and have a system that would keep the water from spreading. The water had been pooling in my yard for a few weeks however it started spreading throughout the yard. MitchCo: **************** (Owner) and his wife stopped by to assess the yard (8 March 2022). During the initial consult, I asked **************** and his wife if a French Drain would be a good solution. **************** immediately told me a French Drain would cost $30,000 and said his solution would cost significantly less at $15,961. ********************* out a plan however, he only came out twice; (1) time to check and (1) time for payment. MitchCo was hired to remove the water from the yard and that did NOT happen. As of 1 April 2022 my yard had more water in it than I originally started with. To complete the transaction to sell my home, I had to place funds in Escrow Holdback to have the yard repaired prior to the sale of the home since it was NOT repaired by MitchCo for $15,961. The Buyer for my home used another company to repair the yard with a French Drain for $3,247.50. To my knowledge the Buyer has had no issues with the yard to this date (2023). After the work was completed & I paid the Owner - ****************, I contacted him and his wife to let them know the system was still not working and I was told there was nothing else they could do. I have tried numerous times to contact **************** however he has not responded to phone calls, texts, or letters to this date 2023 (they do not have an office on ************** - work from home). Too much money to have NO SOLUTION! I would like a FULL REFUND since the job I paid for was NOT RESOLVED until another contractor came in $12k LESS and resolved the issue. A FULL refund is the solution since this job was NEVER resolved/completed.

  Business response

  02/28/2023

  Tell us why here..In regards to ************************************************************************************, and **************************** 

  MitchCo was contacted and was asked to help relieve the water that was apparently coming from subsurface. A plan was devised to capture water in approximately 24 inch by 24 inch reservoirs. The reservoirs were positioned in the areas of the greatest amount of ponding. This was determined and located at the time of evaluation.  The reservoirs which were installed subsurface to grade in areas of influence and attached were 6 inch diameter pvc materials. The material of pvc closed pipe allowed for the exponential amount of subsurface-water to be aided to move to the rear of the property from the back porch and away from the rear of house. This objective was achieved after many man hours of much labor as well as costly materials.  Many trench's were dug and piping installed.  In addition after the materials were impalas well as the water moving it was discovered additional methods were needed to help disburse the excessive amount of water that appeared to be collecting from neighboring properties as well onto the property being discussed.  Additional methods and funds were discussed to be allocated to MitchCo to remedy the situation further as well.  **************** them refused to pay additional funds and threatened in the event MitchCo did not do it without additional funds the matter would be dealt with in other ways eluded to litigation.  The house was on the market to be sold and she was concerned that it would not sell with only what MithCo had been contracted and paid to do at the time.  Since then the house was in fact sold and the additional work that was being considered to implement by MitchCo was done by another entity. Thus all that was implemented worked and works well as all was necessary. 

  Customer response

  03/02/2023

  Complaint: 19451539
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  MitchCo Owner - ****** was hired to resolve the water issue in my backyard and it was NOT resolved by them. It took another company to come in and repair the yard with a French Drain for $3k+ (significantly less than the $15,800 MitchCo charged) for the issue to BE resolved. MitchCo was NEVER threatened in the event MitchCo did not do it without additional funds. Litigation was NEVER mentioned at all. I called and text MitchCos Owner ****** & his wife after they said they were done and let them know the yard was getting worse.The closing was nearing and the Owner ****** told me again there was nothing else that could be done. Yes, the yard needed to be repaired prior to the sale because the home was under contract and the VA requires certain items to be resolved before a Veteran can purchase a home. Regardless, MitchCo was hired to resolve the water issue in the yard, and it was NOT resolved by them.
  

  If the French Drain which was the resolve, like they stated in their response, why did the Owner ****** tell me it would cost more than $30k,and it would not work? Why didnt MitchCo (******) start with the French Drain at $3k instead of quoting $30k? Why was piping and the reservoirs $15,800 knowing it would cost more than a French Drain (average $3-6k in *********** metro area). MitchCo ****** is the subject matter expert in his field. If he was not sure, why take the job?

  
  In regard to MitchCos response, Thus all that was implemented worked and works well as all was necessary. Actually, ALL was NOT necessary. After MitchCo ****** refused to help in any way after they said they were done, the new company installed the French drain separate of the system MitchCo installed. The French Drain is what is working. The piping and reservoirs are useless,expensive material in a yard. Evidently the French Drain was the resolve from the beginning, and it was resolved by another company for this water issue.
  I tried to work with MitchCo ****** to resolve the water issue or get my money back. He would not return phone calls/texts and I could not reach him. Bottom line, MitchCo was hired to resolve the water issue in the yard. The system they installed did NOT work. Another company resolved the issue with an independent French Drain for $3k which is significantly less than the $15,800 I paid to MitchCo. At this point, all I want is a full refund of my money for a job not done.

   

  Regards,

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

  Business response

  03/06/2023

  In regards to the response MitchCo has been mailed legal documentation; at this time being expected to engage in litigation by ***********************. MitchCo is willing to utilize the BBB Better Businesses platforms available for mediation/arbitration in lieu of the lawsuit if *********************** will accept. Otherwise it's a moot point to try and reach a resolution or debate the matter through this avenue.  Please advise if it is acceptable that we utilize the BBB platforms available and MitchCo can reach out to help make arrangements to the appropriate parties. Thank you, MitchCo Foundation Repair. 

• Initial Complaint

  04/14/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Firstly, I am a retired registered professional Engineer licensed in Massachusetts, Colorado and Texas. I only mention this to add some credence to my review. When the work began I noticed that the crew was installing concrete piers while I had contracted for a hybrid pier. They had already installed 6 out of 17. This turned out ok for me since those six locations ended up having 2 piers each instead of one. My concern is that the owners did not appear on site for the beginning of the work by the team of sub-contracted workers to make sure they knew the exact scope of the work. In fact, the only times the owners of MitchCo met with me was for the sales portion and to collect payment. As part of the contract the sewer line was to be inspected via camera (inside of the pipe) and a hydrostatic test was to be performed. Upon the camera inspection a crack was noticed. The plumber (****** Plumbing) told me later that he had seen a red area where the crack was located. He said that the hydrostatic test would fail so the pipe had to be repaired prior to the test. The additional cost to repair the sewer line was approximately $4500.00. When the hole was dug the workers could not find the leak. As the area was under a main beam they dug another hole on the other side of the structural beam. Still no leak was detected, even when we ran a significant amount of water through the drains. There was no moist soil anywhere in the vicinity. When the plumber arrived and cut the section of pipe there had indeed been a crack but it had been repaired by cementing a sleeve over the crack during construction of the home in 1985. The red color detected by the camera inspection was this cement. So there was no leak. I can understand how a novice would make this mistake but not a seasoned plumber. If the plumber had performed the simple hydrostatic test after the camera inspection It would have passed. I explained my concern to owner ****** and he indicated that he would be fair,

  Business response

  05/10/2022

  Mitchco has read the review. We have taken all concerns into consideration and have contacted the homeowners ***** ******** and His wife. We have amicably come up with a resolution. Mitchco has agreed to pay $2K for work that was performed under the instructions of the 3rd party plumbing company. Along with the agreement, the 3rd party plumbing company has agreed to offer a monetary resolution as well. In good faith and conjunction with good business practice MitchoCo finds it imperative to maintain an amicable relationship with our homeowners with the longevity of our lifetime warranty on the Foundation Repair work that was performed. 

  Customer response

  05/13/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 17025451, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Regards,
  
  ******* ********

*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. ↩