Complaints

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:06/13/2024

  Type:Order 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.

  On June 4, 2024, I paid a 50% deposit and signed a contract presented to me at my home by a technician with the Bloomington Roto-Rooter prior to the work to clean the perimeter and downspout drains located on the east and north sides of my home using water **** and camera for the amount of $855. My home, being part of the Woodlands Winding ***************************** is an end unit located in the east side of building#6 that houses four homes with street addresses ********************************************************************************************************. Before starting the actual work, one technician spent time training another one about their equipment. Shortly after the **** and camera were inserted into the perimeter drain from the opening on the northeast corner, they ran into resistance. Using a locator, they found the hose stuck about 110 south in front of the building, between Units#**** and #****. They contacted *********************, their Excavation Supervisor, for help, who arrived at the site shortly after. They spent considerable time attempting to retrieve the hose without success.Under tremendous pressure, including some dishonest claims, from *********************, feeling intimidated and confused, I paid a $4,600 equipment charge, one of the three options ********************* provided, to satisfy them to leave.Working unsupervised, not properly trained, I believe the technician and technician trainee negligently mishandled their equipment. Not in adherence to the contract, they extended the hose beyond my property line. Their action breached the contract I signed; all terms and conditions, and liability against me of the contract thus became nullified. I demand a full refund of the $5,027.50 I paid. Leaving the hose in the drain, Bloomington Roto-Rooter has trespassed on three adjacent properties, Units#****-54, without owners permission. My neighbors demand that, with permission from the Woodlands board, the hose be removed at Roto-Rooters expense and make any repairs if damage to the drain occurs.

  Business Response

  Date: 06/18/2024

  Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We at Bloomington Roto-Rooter take pride in being a complaint free business and hope that we can resolve this issue promptly without damaging our reputation. The information provided by the customer IS NOT completely accurate. 

  
  On May 30th at 8:37am ***************************** placed a service request for an estimate to repair a drainage pipe that was collapsed and a hole in it. She stated that it was for a french drain and water was seeping into a finished basement in which they had already removed the carpet. 

  
  On May 31st *********************, our excavation manager, arrived on-site at 11:44am to provide the estimate for repair. He provided the estimate of $855 to run the camera and jet to clear the perimeter drain using our high-pressure water jet. He took the time to explain step by step what the course of action would be and explained the risks involved as well as giving options for repairs in a cost-effective manner. This estimate was emailed to ****** for her to present to her homeowners association for approval. ****** then asked for us to change the name on the estimate to the homeowners association to make them responsible for the bill. **************** advised her that he could not do that as they had not requested the estimate. 

  
  On June 3rd ***************************** called back to schedule a technician to come out and do the job that was estimated as well as paying a downpayment. This work was scheduled for June 4th between the hours of 10am to noon. 

  
  On June 4th a technician and a helper were dispatched to ********************************* home at 11:05am and they arrived on-site at 11:31am. They began jetting the drain using a trailer mounted piece of equipment pulled behind their service van called a high-pressure water jet. This jet uses water and special jet heads with forward and reverse penetrating jet heads to clear the drainage line at 18 gallons per minute at 4000 PSI. It self-feeds a high-pressure water hose into the drain line using the water pressure and has a capability to clear a 600-foot line. Shortly after the technicians began jetting it was apparent that the jet head had found its way outside of the pipe due to the pipe being damaged and the jet head had lodged itself in the ground. The technicians had tried to dislodge the line but were unsuccessful. At 1:03pm the technicians requested that their supervisor, *********************, be dispatched to their jobsite. At 1:31pm **************** arrived to access the situation. **************** spoke with ***************************** to make her aware of the situation and she was advised to contact the homeowners association to make them aware as well and began to plan a course of action to retrieve the jet hose and jet head by means of a mechanical excavation. As they were preparing for retrieval an HOA board member arrived to access the situation and stated that they could not approve for excavation without the approval of other board members. Several attempts were made to contact other board members, but they were unsuccessful. ***************************** and the original board member on site began to discuss who would be responsible for the bill. **************** explained that he could not leave the piece of equipment on-site as it is attached to the service van and provided options for the homeowner until a settlement could be made with the homeowners association for approval. Over the course of the next few hours **************** had still not gotten the approval to continue work. He approached ***************************** and she stated she did not wish to continue with the excavation and would pay half price to clear the drain line and for the cost of our equipment that was left in the drain line. **************** did make her aware that this money was for the equipment loss and was non-refundable. 

  
  On June 5th **************** made a follow-up call to the homeowners association to see if a decision had been made so that we could proceed with excavation to retrieve our equipment. It was at that time that he was made aware that this had been an on-going situation that the homeowners association had been working on resolving. The homeowners association has been working with contractors, structural engineers as well a wastewater infrastructure business to devise a plan of action and this was slated for repairs in July. 

  
  On June 7th **************** sent an email to ***************************** to describe the events of the job and to make her aware that he had provided the homeowners association with his cell phone number in case they had any questions or wanted to proceed with the job. 

  
  On June 10th the office received a phone call from ****** with the property management company that is over the homeowners association to discuss updates on the job. The general manager, *********************, spoke to ******. ****** was under the understanding that it was our equipment that had caused the damage and the flooding to the homeowners property. He informed her that the homeowner, *****************************, was the original Roto-Rooter customer that had placed a service call wanting an estimate for repairs and had given Roto-Rooter permission to jet & camera the drain line leaving the homeowners home. It was at that time that he was made aware that she did not have the authority to make any decisions for the property outside of her home. It was also mentioned that the legal team was now involved, and she may be held responsible for giving permission for repairs that she did not have the authority to do. 

  
  On June 18th we received notice that ***************************** had made a complaint with the BBB. Once we received this notice, we made a follow up call to ****** with the property management company to see if they had any updates on this issue. ****** stated that they were still awaiting the structural engineers report to see what repairs need to be made and that repairs were still scheduled for some time in July. 
  While I understand that ****** is upset, I do not think she understands the whole scope of work. This is a MAJOR job! She knew that there was an issue and that they were working on it before she contacted us. Due to the scope of work, there are many different contractors involved to make these repairs and now with our equipment stuck in the drain it is making it even more difficult. 

  
  I apologize that it has come to this but please let us know how to respond to rectify this BBB complaint.

  
  Thanks,
  *************************
  

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/19/2024

  Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We at Bloomington Roto-Rooter take pride in being a complaint free business and hope that we can resolve this issue promptly without damaging our reputation. The information provided by the customer IS NOT completely accurate. 
  
  On May 30th at 8:37am ***************************** placed a service request for an estimate to repair a drainage pipe that was collapsed and a hole in it. She stated that it was for a french drain and water was seeping into a finished basement in which they had already removed the carpet. 
  
  On May 31st *********************, our excavation manager, arrived on-site at 11:44am to provide the estimate for repair. He provided the estimate of $855 to run the camera and jet to clear the perimeter drain using our high-pressure water jet. He took the time to explain step by step what the course of action would be and explained the risks involved as well as giving options for repairs in a cost-effective manner. This estimate was emailed to ****** for her to present to her homeowners association for approval. ****** then asked for us to change the name on the estimate to the homeowners association to make them responsible for the bill. **************** advised her that he could not do that as they had not requested the estimate. 
  
  On June 3rd ***************************** called back to schedule a technician to come out and do the job that was estimated as well as paying a downpayment. This work was scheduled for June 4th between the hours of 10am to noon. 
  
  On June 4th a technician and a helper were dispatched to ********************************* home at 11:05am and they arrived on-site at 11:31am. They began jetting the drain using a trailer mounted piece of equipment pulled behind their service van called a high-pressure water jet. This jet uses water and special jet heads with forward and reverse penetrating jet heads to clear the drainage line at 18 gallons per minute at 4000 PSI. It self-feeds a high-pressure water hose into the drain line using the water pressure and has a capability to clear a 600-foot line. Shortly after the technicians began jetting it was apparent that the jet head had found its way outside of the pipe due to the pipe being damaged and the jet head had lodged itself in the ground. The technicians had tried to dislodge the line but were unsuccessful. At 1:03pm the technicians requested that their supervisor, *********************, be dispatched to their jobsite. At 1:31pm **************** arrived to access the situation. **************** spoke with ***************************** to make her aware of the situation and she was advised to contact the homeowners association to make them aware as well and began to plan a course of action to retrieve the jet hose and jet head by means of a mechanical excavation. As they were preparing for retrieval an HOA board member arrived to access the situation and stated that they could not approve for excavation without the approval of other board members. Several attempts were made to contact other board members, but they were unsuccessful. ***************************** and the original board member on site began to discuss who would be responsible for the bill. **************** explained that he could not leave the piece of equipment on-site as it is attached to the service van and provided options for the homeowner until a settlement could be made with the homeowners association for approval. Over the course of the next few hours **************** had still not gotten the approval to continue work. He approached ***************************** and she stated she did not wish to continue with the excavation and would pay half price to clear the drain line and for the cost of our equipment that was left in the drain line. **************** did make her aware that this money was for the equipment loss and was non-refundable. 
  
  On June 5th **************** made a follow-up call to the homeowners association to see if a decision had been made so that we could proceed with excavation to retrieve our equipment. It was at that time that he was made aware that this had been an on-going situation that the homeowners association had been working on resolving. The homeowners association has been working with contractors, structural engineers as well a wastewater infrastructure business to devise a plan of action and this was slated for repairs in July. 
  
  On June 7th **************** sent an email to ***************************** to describe the events of the job and to make her aware that he had provided the homeowners association with his cell phone number in case they had any questions or wanted to proceed with the job. 
  
  On June 10th the office received a phone call from ****** with the property management company that is over the homeowners association to discuss updates on the job. The general manager, *********************, spoke to ******. ****** was under the understanding that it was our equipment that had caused the damage and the flooding to the homeowners property. He informed her that the homeowner, *****************************, was the original Roto-Rooter customer that had placed a service call wanting an estimate for repairs and had given Roto-Rooter permission to jet & camera the drain line leaving the homeowners home. It was at that time that he was made aware that she did not have the authority to make any decisions for the property outside of her home. It was also mentioned that the legal team was now involved, and she may be held responsible for giving permission for repairs that she did not have the authority to do. 
  
  On June 18th we received notice that ***************************** had made a complaint with the BBB. Once we received this notice, we made a follow up call to ****** with the property management company to see if they had any updates on this issue. ****** stated that they were still awaiting the structural engineers report to see what repairs need to be made and that repairs were still scheduled for some time in July. 
  While I understand that ****** is upset, I do not think she understands the whole scope of work. This is a MAJOR job! She knew that there was an issue and that they were working on it before she contacted us. Due to the scope of work, there are many different contractors involved to make these repairs and now with our equipment stuck in the drain it is making it even more difficult. 
  
  I apologize that it has come to this but please let us know how to respond to rectify this BBB complaint.
  
  Thanks,
  *************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/05/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. 
  Please see my attached response to BBB of Central Indiana above.
  [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
  
  Regards,
  
  *****************************
  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/09/2024

  While I understand that the complainant is not satisfied with the response to the complaint, and I understand the frustration that this has caused. THIS IS A VERY BIG JOB that many different contractors as well as structural engineers are involved in. Roto-Rooter has been in contact with the property management firm and are confident that they are working on a resolution. However, because of the scope of the work and the amount of people involved it is just taking some time to come up with a plan of action for the repairs which in no way were caused by Roto-Rooter. Those repairs are slated to be done this month, however, with the recent weather events I'm sure that will play a factor in the repairs as well.