Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  12/08/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Sales and Advertising Issues

  Status:

  Unresolved

  More info

  **** with Feikema Plumbing & Sanitation are trying to convince me the septic system inspection was conducted correctly obscure the fundamental issues that contradict the repairs carried out afterward.**** and his team seem to be engaged in a deceitful scheme aimed at defrauding both individuals and the industry.Their actions reveal a grossly negligent decision to use a disconnected employee to perform a vital inspection. Had proper discernment been applied, the associated failures could have been mitigated.This inspection should have been completed in accordance with the *********************** Minimum Property Requirements, rather than relying on the poorly prepared pencil whipped document submitted for closing.The representative assigned to conduct the VA-required inspection submitted a resignation notice before executing the inspection as contracted.This associate deviated from the minimum property requirements, demonstrating negligence by disturbing a few inches of topsoil to create the illusion that the inspection had been properly completed. This indicates a lack of motivation to perform the job correctly, as the associate was already focused on their new career path.If the inspection had been conducted properly by a qualified and dedicated professional, it would have revealed the crushed pipe beneath the sidewalk, which would not have met the rigorous requirements outlined by the ***********************'s *********** a result, the VA inspection would have failed, necessitating that the property seller address the required repairs prior to the closing of the ******* conduct the inspection properly, **** and the associates at Feikema Plumbing excavated the 8-foot concrete lid of the septic tank and subsequently installed an access portal. The workers identified additional failures related to the improperly performed inspection and shared those findings candidly with my wife. Supporting photo and video documentation was conducted.

  Business response

  12/31/2024

  As a last resort, **** ****** was sent to collect for non-payment after years of delays and false excuses. This is currently impacting his credit rating so he is lashing out.
  
  **** has refused to pay for a minor repair to his septic system because he falsely believes that the inspection from the previous year should have predicted a problem that would occur in the future.
  
  A septic inspection was conducted for him so he could purchase a home. Since the septic tank was manufactured by **** Vault the front opening dimensions are 20" x 48" by 24" deep, the Tech had to spend over an hour digging to access the front opening.
  
  To gain access to the rear opening of the septic tank would require destroying a section of concrete sidewalk.
  
  Once the septic tank was opened, a 15-minute load test was performed and passed. The septic was then emptied and structurally inspected. The rear baffle plate was fully intact, thus blocking out a view of the outlet pipe. Distance to the well and property lines were also checked.
  
  About one year later, a problem developed. After removing the sidewalk and exposing and opening the rear door of the septic tank, it was determined that the lightweight plastic outlet pipe had become crushed and blocked off the flow of effluent water into the drain field. We replaced the bad section of pipe, and installed an access riser and a biological treatment for the drainfield.
  
  The Tech that completed the inspection is a licensed plumber and was very capable of properly completing the inspection. He remained in my employment for 9 months after the inspection.
  
  

   If **** had made the slightest good-faith efforts to resolve this invoice, he would not have gone in collection
  Dirk
  
  

  Customer response

  01/02/2025

  I reject this response because **** is attempting to cover up the fraudulent actions of the employee mentioned in my original complaint and is diverting attention from the evident facts. I paid for a service that was not performed correctly; therefore, if any financial compensation is to be exchanged, it should be a refund for the services I should have received.
  
  As previously mentioned in the original complaint, the outcome would have been different if the inspection had been conducted correctly and according to VA guidelines rather than fraudulent documents being submitted.

  A genuine, (GOOD FAITH) proactive effort to conduct the inspection correctly would have revealed the crushed pipe under the sidewalk rather than waiting for a problem to arise and expecting monetary compensation for something that should have been identified during the inspection.

*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. ↩