Roto-Rooter Plumbing & Drain Service

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 9, 2014/05/20) */ Our technician used an 11/16" sewer rod to attempt to clear the mainlineThis size rod is adequate to clear roots from a mainline and is sold in all sewer supply houses for such purposesWe disagree with Mr [redacted] that our equipment was not adequate for the task or that we overstated the quality of our equipmentWe also disagree that anyone at Roto-Rooter attempted to extort money from Mr [redacted] or any of his listed allegationsI will explain the entire situation below Mr [redacted] signed our paperwork to start the job as well as a "Hold Harmless" agreementI have attached these signed agreementsThese agreements cover the possibility of our cable getting lodged in a customers lineMr ***, who is an attorney himself, clearly knew of the risks involved with having your sewer cleared with a rodding machine I am also attaching some screen shots from the video of his sewer line, pre-repairIn these pictures you will see that the roots were invading the part of the pipe that had severe cracks in itMr [redacted] states these were hairline cracksYou will see from the pictures they are anything but "hairline." We could not get a full visual on where the rod had gotten stuck because the massive roots coming in through the broken pipe hadn't gotten removed before the rod got stuckIt probably was in fact stuck at the 20' mark which is where My [redacted] states there is a "piercing." In "Picture 1" you can see that at 16'11" the pipe is cracked on all sidesPicture is a view looking downstream towards the stuck cableIn "Picture 2" which was approximately 18'4" our technician has manipulated the camera to face back upstream and has a clear view of cracks in the pipe just before the massive root blockageYou can see that the pipe is very cracked and has shifted from itselfThis large crack continues into the rootball in picture It must be understood that when you have a line like this, with large cracks and large roots, there is the possibility that the rod can become lodged in the cracks of the broken pipe or can exit the pipe through the breaks and become lodgedOur rod did not become stuck in the areas of clear pipe, only the area of the pipe which was obviously cracked and damaged We disagree with Mr [redacted] that he is owed any compensation because of any of our actionsWe have shown that his line was damaged before we rodded it and Mr ***, an attorney, understood the risks before we began any work on rodding his lineWe have not charged Mr [redacted] for any of our services to date and respect his decision to use another company to repair his cracked and damaged sewer line, but Roto-Rooter is not responsible for his line being broken and having to get fixed Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 11, 2014/05/29) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) HOMEOWNER'S REPLY Roto-Rooter's response obfuscates the dispositive issue and attempts to substitute self-serving conjecture for factsThe question at hand is: Who should be responsible for the $5,it cost to remove the snake and augur that Roto-Rooter "lodged" in our sewer? As the attached PDF exhibit grahically shows, the answer is simple: Roto-Rooter used an inadequate snake that it recklessly bent and abandoned Roto-Rooter responds that it should not have to pay the costs because (a) it was not oto-Rooter's fault that its equipment got bent and "lodged" in my sewer and (b) I signed a "hold harmless and release." ROTO-ROOTER USED INADEQUATE EQUIPMENT THAT IT RECKLESSLY BENT THEN ABANDONED It cannot be disputed that: When asked, Roto-Rooter represented to me that its equipment was strong enough to clear the roots in our sewer and its equipment was better than that used by my usual sewer company Roto-Rooter used a 11/diameter, coreless flexible snakeSix sewer experts, including two village officials, said the snake was not strong enough to cut roots in a six-inch sewer pipe and should not have been used Roto-Rooter's employee said the equipment "shot right through" the sewer, slowing down "only once to cut through some roots." The correct procedure for cutting roots is to proceed carefully, removing roots as they are cut so as to clear an exit for the augurRoto-Rooter did not follow proper procedure Roto-Rooter's employee claimed he ran "more than feet of snake all the way to the village sewer across the street." Actually, the village sewer is on the near side of the street, only feet awayHe did not know what his equipment was doing or where it was doing it Roto-Rooter's employee said that he "did not have any problems at all" until he tried to remove the equipmentAs the photos show, when the snake and augur got snagged, either he was in too much of a hurry or he panickedInstead of carefully trying to work the augur out through the root bunch, he tried to free his equipment with brute force The undersized snake was unable to withstand the excessive torque from the motorThe snake bent degrees, perpendicular to the line, creating the equivalent of a 3/inch steel grappling hook, that was too big to pull back through our 6-inch diameter sewer pipeNone of the four private sewer professionals nor the village inspector had ever seen a snake bent like that Roto-Rooter cut its snake and abandoned its equipment in my sewer A Roto-Rooter supervisor then falsely told me that the sewer had "collapsed." His superior repeated the falsehood that the sewer had "collapsed" until I asked him how he could claim that when his video camera could not see past the root bunch Roto-Rooter warned me that its equipment would create a blockage, yet refused to remove it unless I agreed to sign its "Excavation Proposal" and pay $5,Roto Rooter even refused to let me view the videotape they had taken of the equipment they abandoned in my sewer unless I first paid the company several hundred dollars Two weeks later, I obtained a plumbing permitMy sewer company excavated a hole and broke into the cracked but intact and fully functional sewer pipeThe augur was "lodged" on the far side of a large bunch of "hair roots." That bunch was attached to a large feeder root that ran from a small puncture in a joint on the near side of the root bunch(Our independently taken video taken before the excavation also shows the augur stuck on the far side of the root bunchRoto-Rooter claims its camera could not see the far side of the root bunch.) It cost me $to remove the equipment Roto-Rooter abandoned in my sewer THE NEED TO EXCAVATE, BREAK OPEN AND THEN REPAIR MY SEWER WAS CAUSED SOLELY BY ROTO-ROOTER'S NEGLIGENCE The three sewer professionals with my usual company, the independent expert who videotaped my sewer, the village plumbing inspector, and the village building inspector all agreed: ARoto-Rooter's snake was too weak to cut roots in a 6-inch sewer and should not have been used BRoto-Rooter went in too quickly without properly clearing an exit through the root bunch CRoto-Rooter recklessly used excessive power and bent the snake degrees perpendicular DSewer "collapses" are extremely rare; it "does not happen even time in a 1000" blockagesOur sewer had not collapsed ERoto-Rooter's equipment got stuck solely because the snake was inadequate and the equipment was misused FMany older sewers have cracks yet remain fully functionalIf Roto-Rooter had not abandoned its equipment, our sewer "could have lasted another or more years." THE LEGALESE DOES NOT PROTECT ROTO-ROOTER FROM ACCOUNTABILITY The last line of Rotor-Rooter's legalese states: "This release and hold harmless will not apply to the extent a claim is caused solely by Roto-Rooter's negligence." As shown above, the facts and expert opinions all clearly show that Roto-Rooter's snake and augur got stuck "solely by Roto-Rooter's negligence." Therefore, the legalese does not protect Roto-Rooter from accountability here Moreover, the "release and hold harmless" does not excuse Roto-Rooter from liability for its deceptive trade practices, especially the fraudulent representations made by Roto-Rooter to induce me to sign the "release and hold harmless." I would not have let Roto-Rooter get started if Roto-Rooter had not lied when I asked him whether the equipment was strong enough Finally, the hold harmless does not and cannot cover Roto-Rooter's bad faith breach of the very contract containing that clause ROTO-ROOTER'S CRACKED CONJECTURE Aware that it is liable under its own contract if the equipment become lodged "solely by Roto-Rooter's negligence," Roto-Rooter attempts to shift blame to grossly exaggerated hairline cracks that were not even at the location where the augur got stuck Roto-Rooter does not dare claim that its augur actually got stuck in a crack because there is no evidence to support such a notionInstead, Roto-Rooter substitutes self-serving conjecture: "It must be understood that when you have a line like this, with large cracks and large roots, there is the possibility that the rod can become lodged." The facts prove that "possibility" did not happen here: When the pipe was broken open to remove the equipment, the augur was not stuck in a crackIt was caught on its own inches of bent steelThe augur was stuck on the far side of the root bunch, away from the main root and away from the cracks Roto-Rooter says it videotaped "looking back upstream" - the opposite direction from the root bunch and the augur Here, Roto-Rooter resorts to another shameless lie that "our rod did not become stuck in the areas of clear pipe, only the area of the pipe which was obviously cracked and damaged." However, Roto-Rooter's camera could not see beyond the root bunchAgain, there is no evidence whatsoever that the pipe was cracked where the augur was stuck ROTO-ROOTER'S MALICE Roto-Rooter again blatantly lies: "We have not charged Mr [redacted] for any of our services to date ." On the contrary: Roto-Rooter's supervisor called me in Denver and threatened to sue if I did not pay them "$for clearing my sewer." After I aaid that it would cost more than that just call to a lawyer, he threatened to call the "county" and have them "condemn your house." Knowing I was out of town, Roto-Rooter maliciously called my village's department of public works and deliberately lied that "raw sewage was spilling into the street." Two village public works officials came over, examined the siteThey told my wife the puddle was "clear water" from the sump and there was no emergency ROTO-ROOTER MAY BE SYSTEMATICALLY ENGAGING IN DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES Roto-Rooter has a reputation within the industry for failing to clear sewers and falsely telling home owners that their sewers have "collapsed" and need "emergency repairs." Roto-Rooter's business plan appears to consist of selling new sewers, whether needed or not There appears to be substantial evidence that Roto-Rooter may be systematically engaging in deceptive trade practices, targeting the elderly, the distracted and the distressed Indeed, there are more than a hundred remarkably similar complaints from victims of Roto-Rooter's practices posted at the Consumer Affairs site, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/rotorooter.htmlTwo examples of complaints similar to our are recited in the attached exhibitNotably, these other victims say Roto-Rooter employed the same frightening language Roto-Rooter used in our case - "collapse" and "condemn." CONCLUSION As the photos in the attached exhibit clearly show: INCHES OF STEEL BENT Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 13, 2014/06/12) */ While we respect Mr ***'s response, we do not agree with his opinion that our equipment was inadequate to clear roots from a 6" mainlineWe clear thousands of these lines every year with this same equipment without issueMr [redacted] had a faulty sewer line as the pictures showedWe have our customers sign our hold harmless agreement prior to cabling the line because damaged lines can damage our equipment and we cannot accept responsibility for thisRoto-Rooter declines to pay any financial requests of Mr [redacted] due to his sewer line being heavily infiltrated with roots and cracks Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 15, 2014/06/13) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) HOMEOWNER'S SURREBUTTAL It is a fundamental axiom of simple logic that a conclusion cannot be correct unless it is consistent with the known facts In its surresponse, Roto-Rooter repeats the naked and unsupported conclusion that it was not Roto-Rooter's fault that its equipment got bent and stuck in my sewerHowever, Roto-Rooter does not even attempt to refute the known facts that compel the contrary conclusion: Northbrook Sewer had been successfully clearing reports from my sewer mainline for more than ten years without incident The manager of Roto-Rooter was on vacation when I engaged Roto-Rooter to clear the roots from my sewer line Roto-Rooter expressly represented that its equipment was not only strong enough to clear the roots from my sewer, but that it was even better than the equipment that Northbrook Sewer had been using Roto-Rooter's employe raced into the drain, having "no problems at all" and claimed to have run more than feet of snake, even though my mainline is less than fifty feet long Roto-Rooter's employee failed to clear an exit path for his augur either because he was negligent or because the Roto-Rooter equipment was not strong enough to cut through the roots There is visible evidence on both videotapes that on its way back out, Roto-Rooter's equipment hung up on the far side of root bunchThere is no evidence that Roto-Rooter's augur got hung up on a crack or that there were even any cracks where RotoRooter's augur got hung up Multiple sewer experts, including three village officials, stated that Roto-Rooter's snake was inadequate for the job and should not have been used After he got it hung up on the root bunch, Roto-Rooter's employee should have tried to carefully unsnag the augurInstead, as the photographs clearly show, Roto-Rooter's employee hastily revved his motor and bent the snake degrees perpendicular to the lineThis bend created the functional equivalent of an almost inch grappling hook The 8-inch grappling hook was too large to pull back out through a 6-inch diameter sewer line Contrary to Roto-Rooter's assertion, Roto-Rooter has experienced numerous problems with its equipment as is evidenced by many of the complaints listed at just the one consumer site referenced in my rebuttal It is not at all surprising that Roto-Rooter refuses to reimburse me for the costs of having a competent sewer company excavate and remove the equipment that Roto-Rooter abandonedRoto-Rooter's refusal to be accountable for its own wrongdoing confirms my belief, shared by more than a hundred other victims, that Roto-Rooter does not appear to be in the business of serving its customers' needsRather, the evidence indicates to us that Roto-Rooter may be in the business of unscrupulously preying on the unwary and taking its victims for all it can get

I called Roto-Rooter to fix a clogged sink in my bathroomThey came out to the house in a timely mannerThe first question the plumber asked was "how much do you want to pay" I was shocked by the question, told him a another company said $but could not come till tomorrow, I said because it's after now, I can see paying He then laughed and said to clean out a clog will be $But we can give you a discount, so the total price would be $Then then did the work, after blowing out my pipes with compressed air, which coused them to replace the pipeThey were done in minI just find this hard to believe, they come in with a high price, so you can't even use there coupon, becasue there giving you a breakI find this unprosssional, and can not see why you give them such a high rating

The customer has not returned callsOur warranty covers all rodding as the camera is free of charge it is not covered under any warrantyWhen we went out to the home on 6/there was no evidence of a backup and therefore we can’t rod a line as it increase the risk of damage to the pipesOur warranty on the rodding is valid until 7/15/and we will honor that should the line backup and there is evidence of this when we go outIf the customer would like to pay for a camera again we will provide another camera inspection and a copy of what we find

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 12, 2014/09/08) */ Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Office Manager Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX Contact Email: [redacted] @rrsc.com Issued a refunded for half of the amount of what was charged to the customer

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2014/12/30) */ Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Office Manager Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX Contact Email: [redacted] Spoke with the customer and we are issuing a refund for $The customer is happy with this resolution

Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Office Manager Contact Phone: [redacted] Contact Email: [redacted] [email protected] We sent another tech back out to resovle the issue and we offered a refund of $for the first service tht we performed

We went back out and honored our warranty and rodded the line again at no additional cost as per our warranty guidelinesWe are not responsible for the growth of roots in the lineWhen we initially left the line was open and there was flowThe paperwork was signed off stating this and our hold harmless agreement was also signed stating that we are not responsible for any damage that may be caused to the home When we went back out we rodded the line again and had a camera tech go out and camera the line at no additional cost to ensure that flow had been restoredWe feel that we have done all that we can to make this situation right

Roto Rooter was called out to assist me with a problem I was having with my sump pump and the pipingIt seemed that there was an obstruction in the line (roots trash of some sort)He arrived with the machine he brought in from his truck asked me to sign some papers indicating that he was going to perform some workHe did not give me a free estimate as indicated on Root A Routers web site and there automated phone systemI indicated that I was stepping away I would be right back in a couple of secondsHe took it upon himself and did not wait for me to return and supposedly began rooting without waiting for me to returnI returned and he indicated that he was not able to get the rooter in the pipe and was not going to perform any additional work risking that the rooter could get caught in the pipingI stated that I never saw him perform any of the work he indicated and wanted to see the rooter being inserted and having difficulty going through the pipeHe should of waited for the customer to the present to perform any of the work he supposedly didWould I recommend this company, [redacted] noWill I use them in the future [redacted] no

Revdex.com,I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaintFor your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Regards, [redacted] respons: # I did not ask Roto rooter to service this house # $charged by Roto Rooter service is excessive and absurd They did not even fix the issue ! # The person that called roto rooter service should be the one responsible for the charges that roto rooter wants to charge The person and owner of the house [redacted] at [redacted] ***, Spokane, WAis the person that asked for the services and should be the responsible party to resolve the charges by Roto Rooter I refuse to pay anything to Roto Rooter due to the nature of this issue and the absurd amount of money for nothing

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2014/09/08) */ Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Office Manager Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX Contact Email: [redacted] @rrsc.com We are scheduled to go back out on 9/to fix the issues

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The negligence from your first employee led to us incurring all the sewage back upIn addition it took over a hour while we were taking in sewage before your company agreed to send someone back out! Furthermore, your first employee never reinstalled our close out drain but rather placed it on top Sincerely, [redacted]

On 6/23/at 2:pm we received a call from Mr [redacted] for a toilet clog and we were scheduled to go out on 6/24/between am and pmWe arrived on time and our sewer and drain technician assessed the issue at handHe quoted our price of $and provided a discount of $bringing the total down to $for a toilet augerMr [redacted] signed off on our invoice agreeing that this price was given to him upfront and that he agreed with this priceOur technician proceed to do the work and once completed Mr [redacted] signed off on the invoice that all work was completed to his satisfactionOur toilet auger comes with a one week guaranteeOn 8/30/at 11:am Mr [redacted] called in stating his toilet was clogged againPrior to this we have no record of him reaching out within the guarantee period to let us know there was an issue with his toiletHad we been contacted during this time frame we would have gladly honored our guarantee and augured the toilet again at no additional cost within the one week time frameAt the time of this call we explained the guarantee to Mr [redacted] , what he paid for at the time of our visit, and did offer to send someone out to quote him for any work that would need to be providedWe explained that prior to doing any work the technician that would come out would evaluate the issue and provide him with a free estimate and he could choose to have the services performed or notHe opted to not have us come out As we were contacted more than two months past our initial visit we withheld our end of the guarantee and have done everything within our powers to resolve this matter for the customer within reason Tell us why here

RevDex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]

We offered to fix the additional problem free of charge for the customer and only charge for the issue we were initial call that we went out for. She declined to have us do the service.... Tell us why here...

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/04/16) */ Contact Name and Title: [redacted] Office Manager Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX Contact Email: [redacted] @rrsc.com Our location is not the location that serviced this customer therefore we are not able to locate any information to resolve this issue for herThere is no phone number listed to reach out and let her know this but I did send her an email letting her know

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 12, 2014/10/10) */
10/9/
Spoke with customer and we are issung a credit for $

Made an appt on 1/5/for them to come check for leaks in toilets and sinks of three bed/bath condo units on 1/9/on behalf of the three owners of the units
Called morning of apptto confirm it and was told it was on track for 8:- noon Got a call a 10:from Roto dispatcher saying they don't offer this service and were canceling the appt asked to speak to supervisor, Jim, who told me they could do the service, and that there was no charge unless they needed to turn a wrench, but would not check in the walls He did mention they were really busy and could not give an estimate when they would arrive Called again at 11:to make sure it was still on the slate and not accidently cancelled Now was told they were too busy and advised I call another company that may be able to come out before them (that company, American Leak Detection wasn't even open) When I said I wantEd to keep our appt despite the fact That she could not get an estimate of arrival time anymore she then informed me there would be an inspection fee but could not tell me the amount
Basically seems that Roto got too busy and was just trying to drop least profitable appts Then when I persisted in keeping the appt we made they introduced a service fee This smells of immoral service practice

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/02/27) */
Contact Name and Title: *** Office Manager
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: ***@rrsc.com
We have reached out to the customer and provide them with all the paperwork that they have requested from us via the
phone and emailWe have also issued them a refund for some of the workThey have stated that they are happy with this

Roto-Rooter was in my home last night (Dec3,2015)The tech was here for and drain cleaning, and although Victor was very professional and tried his best - he had to admit defeat (no charge) and said they would send a plumber the next dayTrue to their word a plumber called to check out the situationDan worked through removing and replacing extremely clogged pipes and got my home up and running againI appreciate the level of professional behavior and he walked me through the entire process I would call them first and refer them to friends

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2014/09/08) */
Contact Name and Title: *** Office Manager
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: ***@rrsc.com
Issued the customer a full refund for services provided due to the delayCustomer has since changed her review on Yelp
and FacebookShe has stated she is happy with the outcome