Complaints

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

close

Find a Location

Montco Rooter Plumbing and Drain Cleaning has 2 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

• 

  Montco Rooter Plumbing and Drain Cleaning

  1151 S Trooper Rd Ste D Norristown, PA 19403-2415

• 

  Montco Rooter Plumbing and Drain Cleaning

  1301 Glasgow St Pottstown, PA 19464-3801

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:02/28/2023

  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.

  On Friday 2/10/23 ************************************* toilet in the basement was backing up into the toilet bowl when flushed. Montco Rooter scoped the sewage line starting from the clean out closet to the holding tank back toward the house. That stated rocks were blocking the pipe. They attempted to clear the pipe, but were unable to do so. The locator was not with the service provider. Montco Rooter measured the length of the snake to determine the approximate location of the blockage. ******* paid $749 for service provided and a $2700 verbal quote to fix the blockage. An invoice number was given to *******. The itemized invoice and quote were never emailed as stated they would be. The pipe was excavated. A camera was used to determine there was no blockage where Montco Rooter indicated. At this time *******s toilet was still back up indicating there was still a blockage elsewhere.On Thursday 2/16/23, ********************************* requested Montco Rooters return to *******************************, Schwenksville, PA  with the locator to identify the exact location of the clog. At this time ******* was informed there would be an additional cost to complete this request. ******* then contacted another plumber to address the problem. This plumber snaked the sewage line from the basement toilet toward the tank and discovered a clog approximately 20 feet from the toilet. He removed the clog and the toilet has been in working order since.Given this information, ******* is requesting a refund of $749 from Montco Rooter for the following reasons:1.The clog that was resulting in the toilet malfunction was not in the location Monto Rooters indicated.2.Montco Rooters did not have the proper equipment to fully diagnose the problem during service.3.Monto Rooters was unwilling to attempt to rectify the misdiagnosis of the initial clog.4. Montco Rooter has been contacted on 4 separate occasion to resolve the issue. Its is stated someone will call back to resolve issue and they never do.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/17/2023

  March 17, 2023 
  Dear *** *******: 
  Thank you for forwarding *** *********'s complaint to me and allowing me the opportunity to respond to her concerns with a more accurate account of the situation. 
  *** ********* contacted our office on 2/10/23 stating that her septic was clogged. A plumber was sent to her home. Upon arrival and inspection of all toilets, the plumber identified that 3 of the four cleanouts were backed up. Therefore, he planned to clear the septic line from the furthest cleanout from the house which was closest to the septic tank and therefore eventually clearing all the clogs by going towards the house. The plumber provided *** ********* with a proposal to attempt to clear the septic line for a charge of $749.00. *** ********* was provided the terms and conditions of our fees and it was explained to her that although the plumber was going to attempt to clear the line with his machine, he could not guarantee that the septic line could be cleared. *** ********* agreed to these terms and the fee for our attempt to clear the line prior to the plumber starting his work. She provided her electronic signature on the plumber's tablet on the invoice/contract permitting him to start the work and agreeing to the fee and conditions. She also signed a written contract agreeing to our terms and conditions. 
  The plumber attempted to clear the line through the outside clean out but could not get all the way through to clear the line. The cable got stuck several times which also indicates that there could be a problem in the line. The plumber felt as though he was hitting something hard. He offered to put his camera in the line free of charge to try and identify the issue. At this point, *** ********* called her son-in-law to come to the house. The son-in-law arrived and the plumber showed both *** ********* and her son-in-law via the plumbing camera that there was a hard object stuck in the line that appeared to be rocks or some other hard object. The plumber stated that he could provide a proposal to dig up the pipe and resolve the problem. *** ********* stated that she was not going to pay to have the pipe dug up and that she would have her son-in-law dig up the pipe. They requested that the plumber tell them the location of where the object was in the pipe. The plumber stated that he would require the use of a locator to give them the exact location. It is true, as stated in the complaint, that the plumber did not have a locator on his truck, however he had informed them that he could have the locator onsite that same day. *** ********* stated that she was not paying for a locator to identify the location of the issue. *** ********* and her son-in-law asked if the plumber could tell them approximately where the location of the issue was located. The plumber explained that without the use of the locator he could not be sure but provided them with information related to the over 200 feet that his cable had gone into the line and based on that information provided them with his best "guess". He clearly stated that it was a "guess" and informed them that without the use of a locator, there is no way to be sure. This is why we use the locator prior to an excavation and suggested *** ********* at least employ us to use the locator prior to her son-in-law digging up the yard. It was made perfectly clear that the plumber could not be sure exactly where on the property the issue was located. 
  Approximately a week later, on 2/16/23, *** ********* called the office and demanded that we send a plumber to her home and camera her line and locate where the issue was within the pipes. She stated her son-in-law had attempted to dig up the pipe and was unable to find the location of the problem. She was told that we would send out a plumber to camera the line and locate but it would cost her a fee. She demanded that we come out free of charge to which we would not agree. She was provided a free camera of her line as a courtesy of our plumber when he was having a problem clearing the line. Our practice is that all customers pay an additional fee to have us camera a line, however, we do allow our plumbers discretion to at times waive the fee. We had already provided her a free camera of the line and she had refused to pay for us to bring a locator to the site when we were originally at her home. As a result, we did not go out to her home and provide our services free of charge. 
  A few days later, I received a call from her son-in-law with questions regarding the work. At this time, her son in law informed me that he had excavated the pipe and had used his phone camera to identify that there was no blockage. Please note that cameras utilized for this type of exploration cost $4,000.00 and a phone camera does not have the ability to provide the same information. In addition, he informed us that he had excavated the pipe and opened it but we have no idea what he did to the pipe. I attempted to merge the plumber into the call, but he was unavailable. I took his number and scheduled a 3-way call with him, the plumber and myself for the next day. When we attempted to call him, he did not answer. A message was left for him. *** *********'s daughter than called our office and had a conversation with the plumber. Our plumber informed *** *********'s daughter that the work the reported second plumber did on the basement toilet would not have resolved the problem for which we were initially called out to her mother's home. 
  *** *********'s complaint states she was not provided her invoice. Our system indicates that the invoice was sent on the day of service to the email which she provided. Prior to this complaint, we have not received notice she did not receive her email. A copy of the email was resent today. I suggest if she does not receive it that she should check her spam folder. 
  In terms of the claim that we have not returned phone calls, this is a false statement. We have returned multiple phone calls and spoken to multiple family members regarding this issue. 
  Thank you again for allowing me to provide you with additional details and clarification of the situation as experienced from our point of view. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at *** ********. 
  

  Sincerely, 
  Michael D. H

  Montco-Rooter Plumbing

• Initial Complaint

  Date:08/11/2022

  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.

  Montco Rooter came out to to fix a clogged toilet in our store. They didn`t have the machine to handle the problem but they still charged our credit card more than $800. They said it was an honest attempt to fix it!!! First tech spent 30 min in the bathroom and asked us to us agree to a $900 charge and they would take care of the problem the same day. We agreed; it was an emergency. The technician presented a tab!et with the price, and I signed his estimate. The techs spent 3 hours taking the toilet off the wall and putting it back on the wall without any result. When the toilet was mounted back, Montco Rooter informed us that they are finished and ready to accept the payment. The charge was $604.72. Plus $200 for a part? Was the problem fixed? No, The problem is outside, underground, and would run another $1,000. We were not informed of a $804,72 for a failed attempt to fix a toilet, in response he said that we signed a "contract". There was no contract, only an estimate. We should have called the police at that point but we let the tech leave. If we were told in the first place that that MotcoRooter does not have a commercial grade machine, I`d never allow these techs inside the prem. The next day, I called a different plumber. A tech came out, with a large size machine, fixed the issue all by himself within 35 min. The problem was not outside. Right away I called Monto Rooter to follow up and explain that everything is fixed and problem was mis-diagnosed. Mike was very rude and refused a refund. He said I paid $800 "for his honest attempt to fix a toilet and he does not work for free". We are extremely dissatisfied with the work performed. Montco Rooter did not have the equipment required to handle a commercial toilet but they decided to try. We don't think It is fair to charge the customer for an unsuccessful job the same amount that was quoted for a fix. .***************************** ********************* ************************************************************ ************

  Business Response

  Date: 09/14/2022

  September 7, 2022 
  Dear *** *******, 
  Thank you for forwarding this customer's concerns to me and allowing me the opportunity to respond to her concerns with a more accurate account of the situation. The customer's account of the situation, as is stated in her complaint, is missing pertinent information as well is inaccurate according to our documented records. 
  On March 22, 2022, *** ******* called us out to her business because of a clogged toilet. Upon arrival, the plumber found a clogged toilet as well as a broken flush valve. The plumber advised that the flush valve would need to be repaired for a fee of $198.00. He also stated that he would attempt to auger the toilet for an additional fee of $392.00 but explained that the line may not be able to be cleared by using the auger and that the fee would be applicable regardless of whether the auger cleared the line or not. He was unsuccessful in clearing the line using an auger. The plumber then stated that he could pull the toilet and attempt to clear the line by using the cabling machine. The customer was informed that she would not be charged the initial $392.00 for the attempted auger and was provided the price of $429.00 to lift and rest the toilet. Please note that the charge to lift and reset a toilet is a separate charge from using the cable to clear it. The customer was told that the charge to run the cable through the line would be $340.00. The customer was asked to sign a evaluate and stoppage disclaimer prior to the attempt to clear the line which states that the customer will pay a designated price if after at least 90 minutes and a reasonable attempt had been made to clear the line even if the plumber was unable to clear the line. The plumber provided the customer the fee of $190.00 if the plumber was unable to clear the line. The customer was asked to sign this disclaimer, as it appeared as though there had been abuse to the line. The customer signed the invoice prior to the start of attempting to clear the line agreeing to these terms. The plumber spent a significant amount of time attempting to clear the line and as shown in the attached pictures, there was a significant amount of paper towels and feminine products pulled from the toilet as he attempted to clear the line. The plumber spent a considerable amount of time, over 90 minutes as per our contract and was unable to clear the line as he continued to pull out debris. The plumber made the recommendation to have the main sewer line jetted and provided a proposal. The customer stated that she was not interested in having the line jet cleaned. 
  The total bill incurred by the customer was $824.72 for all the services provided. The payment was split into two amounts $604.72 and $220.00 for a total of $824.72. 
  The customer received the services for which she paid. She signed a contract agreeing to our terms prior to the plumber starting each step of the process. The customer contacted us several days later to state that she had someone else come out and clear the line. Please note that by the time the second company arrived, we had already spent a significant amount of time to clear the line and had made progress having pulled out a substantial amount of debris. Our policy to which she signed in agreement, is to spend a minimum of 90 minutes and make a reasonable attempt to clear a line. If after a reasonable amount of time the line is not cleared, our policy is to recommend the next step of utilizing the jet to clear the line. We clearly provided the services for which she paid as per our signed terms and agreement which she signed prior to the start of service. Please note that $198.00 of this bill is for the repair of the flush valve. 
  In conclusion, *** ******* attempted to have the charges for our services reversed by her credit card company back in March of this year. After reviewing the documentation, pictures and specifics of the situation her credit card company found that she was in fact responsible for the charges for the work that we performed. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at ###-###-####. 
  Sincerely, 
  Michael H