ComplaintsforWater Savers, LLC

• Initial Complaint

  03/01/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Water Savers, LLC, performed leak detection services on 1/12/2022 at my home. At its website https://watersaversatlanta.com/ and subsequent email communications, they stated it stands behind its work 100%. Water Savers diagnosed a slab leak and provided an estimate of $4,942.60 to fix it. Contrary to Water Savers 1/12 slab leak diagnosis, a second opinion by ************************** of ******* affirmed on 1/24 that the only source of water leak at my property was the malfunction of two toilets causing high water bills. A quick fix on 1/26, the fill valve on master ***************** on two toilets stopped the leak for $99 materials/labor. A third opinion by Gwinnett County Water Resources concurred, on two occasions, that there are no leaks detected at my property first by GWRs technician on 1/31 and GWRs water specialist on 2/3. Based on the 2nd and 3rd opinions by other leak detection professionals, I find Water Savers actions to be misrepresented & deceptive practices. Had I moved forward with the repairs, I would have wasted $4,942.60 not to mention the disruption to my home during unnecessary and unjustified work.I have attempted to resolve this dispute via emails, certified letters and having Water Savers return to my property on 1/28 for a reassessment. On 1/28 and again on 2/17/2022 they continue to stand firm in the first diagnosis of 1/12/2022. Full supporting documentation is available upon request including as communication efforts on 1/24, 1/25, 1/27, 2/1, 2/2, 2/14, 2/17, and 2/25/2022 to resolve this dispute. Water Savers remains unwilling to stand by its workmanship and unwilling to refund a fair and equitable portion of the $1,019.77 paid in good faith by me to Water Savers for leak detection services which has since been proven to be a misdiagnosis. Gwinnett Water Resources (twice) and American Leak Detection confirm there is no leak at my property.

  

  Business response

  03/02/2022

  Water Savers (WS) sent two technicians out on 1/28, one being our Master Plumber, to check our 1/12 findings. During our visit on 1/28  it was found and proven to the customer on site that while the main shut off valve was turned off to the house the meter continued to move. Same as our 1/12 diagnosis, indicating a leak within her main water service line between the meter and the main shut off valve. I also want to note the diagnosis of was not a slab leak. Our findings were as follows : 
  *Moisture from master bath shower pan; improper application due to no threshold
  *A very small leak in the water service between the water meter and the manifold in the garage closet through the footing.
  *Moisture level on hardwood floors under breakfast table range from 5.1% to 6.2%

  WS has show the customer the meter moving while the main shut off valve for the house is turned to the off position twice. WS stands by our 1/12/22 diagnosis of there being a very small leak with in the main water service between the meter and the house. 

  Customer response

  03/02/2022

   
  Complaint: 16821209
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 

  Water Savers (WS) did indeed send two technicians out on 1/28 to check their 1/12 findings. They were the very same two technicians who gave the original diagnosis; even though I had requested a supervisor be present and none came. The meter did continue to move while the one technician was demonstrating the meter movement yet the location of the 2nd technician is unknown to me as he was not present or in my line of sight during the meter demonstration.I understand mistakes can be made but Water Savers refuses to admit a mistake.

  Water Savers explanations are inconsistent from one communication to another. In some of the email communications they reference it as a slab leak and in others they state it is not a slab leak. Regardless, the estimate provided is to deconstruct the slab area to do repairs and then pour the slab concrete back. The source of the water loss was identified and resolved by fixing the toilets on 1/24/2022. Both American Leak Detection of ******* and Gwinnett County Water Resources (GWR on two occasions) confirm there is no leak at my property and further evidenced by the fact that my water usage is back to where it should be for a one-person household. 

  Bottomline, I either have a leak at my property or I don't - and two professional companies say none exists! The leakage was from my two toilets that needed repairs and NOT between the main water service line between the meter and the main shut off valve. Considering two different entities find no leak exists and that Water Savers continues to insist in what they now describe as a very small leak in the water service between the water meter and the manifold in the garage closet through the footing when non exists, I surmise this is deceptive practice trying to make work for themselves for which they quoted me almost $5,000 to repair.

  Water Savers response to this complaint when referencing Moisture from master bath shower pan; improper application due to no threshold and Moisture level on hardwood floors under breakfast table range from 5.1% to 6.2% - has nothing to do with this complaint.
  
  Sincerely,
  *********************************

  

  Business response

  03/04/2022

  WS stands by our diagnosis. We have been out to the customers property twice and proved there was a leak. I one of her earlier emails she says herself " I cant explain the swift rotation of meter gauge while your same technicians were back onsite for the re-assessment. " Acknowledging she too seen the meter moving while the main shut off valve was in the off position, indicating a leak within the main water service. 

  Customer response

  03/04/2022

   
  Complaint: 16821209
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The very same technicians who gave the original 1/12 diagnosis were the two who returned on 1/28 for a second evaluation - even though I had requested in writing that a supervisor be present and none came with the same two. During ******* Caesars demonstration about the meters movement, the whereabouts of the 2nd technician is unknown to me as he was not present and in my line of sight during the meter demonstration.
  

  At the 1st visit on 1/12 I found **************** to be very professional yet when later questioned about the validity of his diagnosis he became somewhat hostile and intimidating and continues to behave in this manner.This is the reason I requested a supervisor be present; yet none came. I have since learned that **************** is the owner of the business. Had he isolated the toilets when he first arrived on 1/12/2022 he would have found the leakage was from that source rather than from the area for the $4,942 estimated repairs.Another plumber resolved the leakage on 1/26 by repairing the toilets after ******************************* of ******* isolated the toilets on 1/24 and found them to be the source of the leak.

  For Water Savers to continue to stand firm to its 1/12 diagnosis, I surmise there is deceptive practice on the part of Water Savers by trying to make needless work for themselves for which they quoted me almost $5,000 to repair; said leak is disputed by two other unbiased leak detection entities. Bottom line, it is very simple either theres a leak or there isnt and both American Leak Detection of ******* and Gwinnett County Water Resources (GWR on two occasions) confirm there is no leak at my property as further evidenced by the fact that my water usage is back to where it should be for a one-person household. 

  To resolve this dispute, either of the two following options are acceptable to me:
  ?             Water Savers refund back to me a fair and equitable portion of the $1,019 I paid in good faith for services rendered that resulted in Water Savers misdiagnosis.
  ?             Arbitration involving yet a 3rd independent and impartial third-party leak detection specialist.

  Sincerely,
  *********************************

*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. ↩