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:03/02/2024

  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.

  2/26/30 Tech determined problem and relevant conditions before entering our home or listening to the issue. Service was represented as sophisticated detection methods.He portrayed listening to the leak dripping in the wall in one wrong location. Determined it was NOT a leak (which continues...) and left after 20 minutes. We paid the fixed fee for an incomplete, inaccurate evaluation. Tech was personable, overconfident, and briefly offered inappropriate conclusions.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/05/2024

  On 2/24/2024 ********************* contacted our office with concern for a "dripping" sound heard in the dining room/kitchen area. On 2/26/2024 ************** arrived at the property to inspect. The technician began by reading the water meter for water loss with no movement on the meter for water loss at the time of inspection. Tech then inspected the attic space with no leaks, saturation, or water damages located at time of inspection. Tech examined the **** pan and discovered some moisture in the area, but no active leak at time of inspection.Tech then investigated the crawl space, hearing sporadic knocking, but the sound would go away. There were no active leaks detected at the property at time of inspection. According to our tracking systems, the technician was onsite for 51 minutes. Our office has not received any calls or communication from the customer regarding their dissatisfaction with the service. Our office reached out to ********************** this morning with the offer to reinspect the property. We offered to send a different technician and stated there will be no fee for the reinspection if there was a leak the original technician missed,however if the new inspection's results are the same as the first inspection, a service fee would be charged. ********************** declined any further inspection at this time. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/05/2024

   
  Complaint: 21376638
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/05/2024

  Diagnosis not comprehensive, technician predetermined.the problem wasn't relevant/applicable.

  Leak Doctor promotes advanced electronic equipment and detection, not employed.

  Expected source of dripping to be identified., not dismissed out of hand.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/05/2024

  Diagnosis not comprehensive,technician predetermined.the problem wasn't relevant/applicable. --- A comprehensive inspection was completed. The technician read the water meter outside of the home, inspected the interior of the home, inspected the attic,and the crawl space with no leaks detected at the time of service. 

  
  Leak Doctor promotes advanced electronic equipment and detection, not employed. ---As mentioned in the initial complaint and confirmed with ********************** on the phone this morning, highly sensitive sound equipment was used during the inspection time. 
  
  Expected source of dripping to be identified., not dismissed out of hand. ---At the time of inspection, there was no water damage, moisture, or any other indication of a leak besides the intermittent sound of dripping. Our technicians can only identify the source of the dripping sound if the sound is being caused by a leak. The technician determined there was no active leak at the time of inspection. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/17/2024

  Leak Doctor responded timely, offered to send another tech, for a significant contingent fee.  I was unwilling to pay twice for an incompetent first service call.

  I have since found/confirmed a major ongoing leak and taking steps to repair...

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/21/2024

  Leak Doctor responded timely, offered to send another tech, for a significant contingent fee.  I was unwilling to pay twice for an incompetent first service call.

  I have since found/confirmed a major ongoing leak and taking steps to repair...

  Business Response

  Date: 03/21/2024

  As previously stated, there would only be a fee charged if the second inspection yielded the same results as the ****************. If there was a leak that was missed by the first inspector there would have been NO charge for the second inspection at all. Please feel free to send all photos and/or videos of the missed leak to ******************************* for further review.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/21/2024

   
  Complaint: 21376638
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  Brief visit provided no "electronic" or detection tools/instruments to investigate a real and challenging problem.  Tech pre-determined it to be a non-issue without the advertised methods/techniques. Advance fee leads customer to expect an interested, comprehensive service.   One does not wish to risk another exorbitant fee with the likelihood of repeat incompetence. 
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:11/18/2022

  Type:Customer Service 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 9th, 2022 Leak Doctor technical came out to run an Infrared Leak Detection for some water we were seeing coming up into our wood floors. He ran his process and noted that there was water coming in from the communication wires in the back of the house. Following this, the area was repaired and we attempted to dry out the area, but there is still water coming in. This clearly means that there has to be a different area that the water is coming in from and the original $450 charge (which I might add is extremely high for 30 minutes of work) was not property done or not thorough enough. After calling the business to see if they could help remedy the situation, they informed me that this would be ANOTHER $250 charge to come out and they could not guarantee anything. To me both the amount and the service levels are grossly out of sorts.

  Business Response

  Date: 01/06/2023

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/11/25) */ On June 9, 2022 a Leak Doctor technician arrived to perform an infrared inspection due to a concern for water intrusion. Upon arrival, the technician inspected the area of concern where there was water entering the home from the exterior wall. A rain simulation test was performed to the exterior of the home and water was confirmed to be entering the home from the exterior after the inspection was complete. Technician reviewed the findings with the client and captured photos of the confirmed water intrusion at time of inspection. According to our gps tracker on the on the technician's van the technician was onsite for 1 hour. On November 10, 2022, about five months after our initial inspection and on the day of a hurricane, we received a call from the client stating that water came in again. The representative that spoke with the client asked if they had the person that made the repair come to verify that the repair was still holding. The client stated that they did not. Since the technician has photos verifying the area of concern, we informed the client that we could perform another inspection to the home, however there would be a service charge for the inspection. Our representative explained to the client that we do not guarantee, especially with structural inspections since we are unable to replicate all weather conditions. There is a copy of this disclaimer on the invoice that was signed by the client on the original inspection date. Due to the amount of time that has passed since the initial inspection, and the technicians photos confirming the water intrusion we would typically charge a full fee to return, however we informed the client that we would return for a reduced service fee which was declined by client. All photos from technician attached for reference. Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2022/12/07) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I don't understand how they can charge $450 for an hour session the first time and then expect another $250 for them to come out again after the original leak was not detected. A business can't just have unlimited ability to charge for a service that was not provided, even if they make you sign waivers. Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2022/12/12) */ A leak detection service was performed by our technician. The technician did find a leak at the time of service, per the provided photos. We did not receive a call about the leak not being found until after a hurricane and 5 months after the initial inspection. Due to the photo verification of the original leak that was located at the time of service, the amount of time that has passed since the initial inspection, and the fact we do not guarantee since we are unable to recreate all weather conditions, we would typically charge a full leak detection fee to return. In order to compromise, we offered to reduce the fee to a service charge, which was declined by the customer. At this time we are not sure that even returning at a reduced rate will appease this situation, and feel that it would be best that the customer reaches out to a company that can better satisfy their needs. Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2022/12/12) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Unacceptable. A refund of the original payment, would resolve this then.