Precision Locating

On 7/28/we went out to perform a water leak survey@ [redacted] The technician stated on the report that he "localized a hot water leak in the kitchen entry way, approximately inches deepIt appears to be on the line from the heater to the hall bathroom, marked with a blue XPlumber to verify the leaking lines and manifolds prior to repairs being madeThe leak, lines, and manifolds were marked in their approximate locations through the home with blue tape." Our contract, which is signed by [redacted] ., states that services performed may result in less than all items being located due to unforeseen circumstances in attempting to locate items buried beneath the soilIt also states that there is no guarantee and that services are limited to a "best effort basis" On 7/29/his plumber contacted us and within minutes we were back on site to further assist with the locateIt was determined that the leak was approximately y,ft over from where it was originally marked the previous day and that the line ran under cabinetsThe plumber decided to do a reroute of the line using the information we supplied him by marking out which line the leak was on and the manifolds associated with that waterlineA repair or reroute cannot be performed without the locating of the leak, lines, and manifold locations so [redacted] did benefit from our services Our rate for services is hourlyWe did not charge any additional to continueIf fact we refunded him our service charge of $That refund more than covers his stated tile repair cost of $He is not out any money due to our locate, in fact he benefited from our servicesWe did speak with him directly and made every attempt to resolve this matter I have included a copy of our contract, signed by [redacted] A reverse charge for $was credited to his Visa credit card, which he acknowledged in his letter to you

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The response states that the actual leak was approximately feet from where it was originally marked In fact, the actual leak was located at least feet, possibly significantly more, from where it was originally marked The location of the actual leak was never precisely determined.
The response states that I benefitted from the services provided To the contrary, the services that were initially performed by a technician (in the employ of the owner of the business) were not competently performed When the owner came to scene, he immediately recognized that the technician had been fooled and had misinterpreted a signal on his instruments The technician should have realized that this signal could have been created by a pipe running roughly parallel to, and a few feet away from, the one he had identified It should have been obvious to the technician that there were pipes running behind the cabinetry, since the technician knew where water had been spotted (in the adjacent laundry room, near the extension of the wall which contained the kitchen sink) In addition the location of the sink, against this wall, was clearly visible for all to see The technician should have evaluated the possibility that the signal he was receiving was in fact related to the roughly parallel pipe behind the kitchen wall If he was unsure, he should have asked for assistance in this determination Instead, the technician stated with absolute certainty that the leak he had found was directly underneath the "x" he had marked He stated this so emphatically that the plumber relied entirely on this information, against his better judgement
While the technician was doing his initial work, I asked him if it would be helpful for him to have the hot water heater turned on so that he could use any equipment that would detect elevated temperature beneath the floor (The hot water heater had been turned off because, at the time, it was felt that this might be contributing to the leak.) The technician told me that this would not be necessary I believe that this represented an unwarranted shortcut on the part of the technician that possibly contributed to his gross error on this job
In short, the services provided were clearly below an acceptable industry standard
The response states that the plumber did a reroute using information supplied by the business and that, therefore, I benefitted from the services of the company This is a statement The plumber did NOT do any reroute Instead, the plumber solved the problem by threading a PEX tube through the existing copper pipe, thereby excluding the area of the leaking pipe from the system This solution, which was NOT a reroute, did NOT require any information from the business in order to be successful
The response states that the business made "every attempt to resolve the matter" In fact, my initial request to have reimbursement for the title work that should not have been necessary was met with a flat "no" by the owner of the business I don't think that the actions of the business can be fairly described as making "every attempt to resolve the matter"
For all of the above reasons, I do not accept the response made by the business
Regards,
*** ***

On 7/28/14 we went out to perform a water leak survey@ [redacted] [redacted]. The technician stated on the report that he "localized a hot water leak in the kitchen entry way, approximately 6 inches deep. It appears to be on the line from the heater to the hall bathroom, marked with a blue...

X. Plumber to verify the leaking lines and manifolds prior to repairs being made. The leak, lines, and manifolds were marked in their approximate locations through the home with blue tape."
Our contract, which is signed by [redacted]., states that services performed may result in less than all items being located due to unforeseen circumstances in attempting to locate items buried beneath the soil. It also states that there is no guarantee and that services are limited to a "best effort basis".
On 7/29/14 his plumber contacted us and within 30 minutes we were back on site to further assist with the locate. It was determined that the leak was approximately 2 y,ft over from where it was originally marked the previous day and that the line ran under cabinets. The plumber decided to do a reroute of the line using the information we supplied him by marking out which line the leak was on and the manifolds associated with that waterline. A repair or reroute cannot be performed without the locating of the leak, lines, and manifold locations so [redacted] did benefit from our services.
Our rate for services is hourly. We did not charge any additional to continue. If fact we refunded him our service charge of $225. That refund more than covers his stated tile repair cost of $200. He is not out any money due to our locate, in fact he benefited from our services. We did speak with him directly and made every attempt to resolve this matter.
I have included a copy of our contract, signed by [redacted]. A reverse charge for
$225 was credited to his Visa credit card, which he acknowledged in his letter to you.

On 7/28/14 we went out to perform a water leak survey@ [redacted]. The technician stated on the report that he "localized a hot water leak in the kitchen entry way, approximately 6 inches deep. It appears to be on the line from the heater to the hall bathroom, marked with a blue...

X. Plumber to verify the leaking lines and manifolds prior to repairs being made. The leak, lines, and manifolds were marked in their approximate locations through the home with blue tape."

Our contract, which is signed by [redacted]., states that services performed may result in less than all items being located due to unforeseen circumstances in attempting to locate items buried beneath the soil. It also states that there is no guarantee and that services are limited to a "best effort basis".

On 7/29/14 his plumber contacted us and within 30 minutes we were back on site to further assist with the locate. It was determined that the leak was approximately 2 y,ft over from where it was originally marked the previous day and that the line ran under cabinets. The plumber decided to do a reroute of the line using the information we supplied him by marking out which line the leak was on and the manifolds associated with that waterline. A repair or reroute cannot be performed without the locating of the leak, lines, and manifold locations so [redacted] did benefit from our services.

Our rate for services is hourly. We did not charge any additional to continue. If fact we refunded him our service charge of $225. That refund more than covers his stated tile repair cost of $200. He is not out any money due to our locate, in fact he benefited from our services. We did speak with him directly and made every attempt to resolve this matter.

I have included a copy of our contract, signed by [redacted]. A reverse charge for

$225 was credited to his Visa credit card, which he acknowledged in his letter to you.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The response states that the actual leak was approximately 2 feet from where it was originally marked.  In fact, the actual leak was located at least 4 feet, possibly significantly more, from where it was originally marked.  The location of the actual leak was never precisely determined. 

The response states that I benefitted from the services provided.  To the contrary, the services that were initially performed by a technician (in the employ of the owner of the business) were not competently performed.  When the owner came to scene, he immediately recognized that the technician had been fooled and had misinterpreted a signal on his instruments.  The technician should have realized that this signal could have been created by a pipe running roughly parallel to, and a few feet away from, the one he had identified.  It should have been obvious to the technician that there were pipes running behind the cabinetry, since the technician knew where water had been spotted (in the adjacent laundry room, near the extension of the wall which contained the kitchen sink).  In addition the location of the sink, against this wall, was clearly visible for all to see.  The technician should have evaluated the possibility that the signal he was receiving was in fact related to the roughly parallel pipe behind the kitchen wall.  If he was unsure, he should have asked for assistance in this determination.  Instead, the technician stated with absolute certainty that the leak he had found was directly underneath the "x" he had marked.  He stated this so emphatically that the plumber relied entirely on this information, against his better judgement.

While the technician was doing his initial work, I asked him if it would be helpful for him to have the hot water heater turned on so that he could use any equipment that would detect elevated temperature beneath the floor.  (The hot water heater had been turned off because, at the time, it was felt that this might be contributing to the leak.)  The technician told me that this would not be necessary.  I believe that this represented an unwarranted shortcut on the part of the technician that possibly contributed to his gross error on this job.

In short, the services provided were clearly below an acceptable industry standard.

The response states that the plumber did a reroute using information supplied by the business and that, therefore, I benefitted from the services of the company.  This is a FALSE statement.  The plumber did NOT do any reroute.  Instead, the plumber solved the problem by threading a PEX tube through the existing copper pipe, thereby excluding the area of the leaking pipe from the system.  This solution, which was NOT a reroute, did NOT require any information from the business in order to be successful.

The response states that the business made "every attempt to resolve the matter".  In fact, my initial request to have reimbursement for the title work that should not have been necessary was met with a flat "no" by the owner of the business.   I don't think that the actions of the business can be fairly described as making "every attempt to resolve the matter".

For all of the above reasons, I do not accept the response made by the business.

Regards,

Review: I hired Precision Locating, on the recommendation of a licensed plumber, to determine the location of a leak. Precision Locating stated that they were certain that the leak was located underneath a specific location in my kitchen. On the basis of this representation, I authorized the plumber to remove the tile floor and to drill through the cement slab foundation in order to expose the supposedly leaking pipe. When this was done, no leak was found. I had to purchase new tile and to hire a tile installer to rectify the damage that was unnecessarily done to my home, as a result of the inaccurate work performed by Precision Locating.Desired Settlement: I would like to be compensated for the direct expenses I incurred to fix the damage that resulted from the unnecessary removal of tile (and drilling through the concrete slab). This amounted to $ 200.00. I have asked the owner of Precision Locating to reimburse me this amount, but he has flatly refused my request. I feel that Precision Location should be responsible for fixing the completely unnecessary damage that was done to my home as a result of its erroneous leak detection services. (Please note: The $ 200.00 is the amount I paid to the tile layer and to the tile company. I have already received a refund of the amount I paid to Precision Locating.)

Business

Response:

On 7/28/14 we went out to perform a water leak survey@ [redacted]. The technician stated on the report that he "localized a hot water leak in the kitchen entry way, approximately 6 inches deep. It appears to be on the line from the heater to the hall bathroom, marked with a blue X. Plumber to verify the leaking lines and manifolds prior to repairs being made. The leak, lines, and manifolds were marked in their approximate locations through the home with blue tape."

Our contract, which is signed by [redacted]., states that services performed may result in less than all items being located due to unforeseen circumstances in attempting to locate items buried beneath the soil. It also states that there is no guarantee and that services are limited to a "best effort basis".

On 7/29/14 his plumber contacted us and within 30 minutes we were back on site to further assist with the locate. It was determined that the leak was approximately 2 y,ft over from where it was originally marked the previous day and that the line ran under cabinets. The plumber decided to do a reroute of the line using the information we supplied him by marking out which line the leak was on and the manifolds associated with that waterline. A repair or reroute cannot be performed without the locating of the leak, lines, and manifold locations so [redacted] did benefit from our services.

Our rate for services is hourly. We did not charge any additional to continue. If fact we refunded him our service charge of $225. That refund more than covers his stated tile repair cost of $200. He is not out any money due to our locate, in fact he benefited from our services. We did speak with him directly and made every attempt to resolve this matter.

I have included a copy of our contract, signed by [redacted]. A reverse charge for

$225 was credited to his Visa credit card, which he acknowledged in his letter to you.