ComplaintsforHewitt-Messenger Well Drilling & Pump Service

• Initial Complaint

  07/10/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Date of transaction: June 9th, 2023 Amount of money Paid: $210 What the business committed to provide you: Well treatment service to fix positive test for coliform in well water. What the nature of the dispute is: On June 9th, 2023 one worker came out and treated well by throwing handful of treatment tablets down well and drove off after accepting $210 payment. Worker did not advise us on next steps of well treatment if any. 10 days later we had water tested by county and well was still positive for coliform. The county health department officer advised us that there is much more to treating a well than what was provided. Whether or not the business has tried to resolve the problem: On July 10th we contacted company to see if they could treat well and asked if they could fix the problem for a discount since they did not fix it the first time. The manager told my wife they would come out for another $210 and laughed at her over the phone about the idea of them fixing their mistake with a discount of some type. We are no longer interested in having them visit our house for further service and are seeking a full refund instead.

  

  Business response

  07/11/2023

  July 11, 2023

   

  Better Business Bureau

  Please review the following items pertaining to Complaint # ******** filed by Mr. ******** ******* on his water well chlorination:

  1.     June 9, 2023 : Water well disinfection – Disinfection performed by Mr. **** **********, Operations Manager for Drill It Well, Inc. per Missouri Department of Natural Resources – Code of State Regulations – 1* *** *********

  Mr. ******* (present at well chlorination) was instructed to run the heavily disinfected water into the home and all water outlets until a “chlorine” odor could be smelled at all and turn water off.

  **** recommended a new well cap to keep possible contamination sources -spiders, bugs, etc.  from the interior of the well.

  Ultraviolet (UV) Light Disinfection discussed / recommended.

  2.     July 10, 2023 : ******* ******* / **** ********** phone conversation –

  Ms. ******* ******* spoke with **** ********** concerning her dissatisfaction with a second failed coliform bacteria test (e-choli absent). **** explained the amount of disinfectant utilized was correct per MODNR guidelines. **** did state that the longer they could allow the water to remain static could possibly influence the disinfection process. Ms. ******* repeatedly stated she wanted the well disinfected again at no cost or a full refund. She was advised that the water well was disinfected according to the MODNR Guidelines and no entity can guarantee disinfection. **** again advised that her adamant demands would not be met. At this point Ms. ******* said she no longer wanted anything to do with the company and would discourage anyone, anyway she could, to do the same. She then started an “online” campaign to discredit us.

  Example is submitted with this response.

   

  Customer response

  07/11/2023

  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  We dispute several points made by Mr. ********** in his account of the situation and wish to clarify them.

  Firstly, it was stated that on July 9, 2023, Ultraviolet (UV) Light Disinfection was discussed and recommended. We must refute this assertion. Mr. ********** never stepped foot into our home to assess the feasibility of installing a UV Light Disinfection device nor provided a quote for its cost. Thus, no recommendation for such a system could have been given.

  Secondly, we note that Mr. ********** instructed Mr. ******* to run the water into the home and turn off the water once a chlorine odor could be detected from all outlets. However, the precise duration for which the water should remain off was not stipulated, leaving us in ambiguity. The lack of clarity in such a critical part of the process could result in various interpretations, from as short as 30 minutes to as long as 24 hours. We believe this crucial step should have been more detailed and, preferably, undertaken by Hewitt-Messenger Well Drilling & Pump Service to ensure the effectiveness of the disinfection process.
  
  Lastly, the depiction of Ms. ******* *******'s actions as an "online campaign to discredit" Hewitt-Messenger Well Drilling & Pump Service is quite an exaggeration. Our aim has been to share our honest experiences as customers, a right we believe we are entitled to. To date, we have only filed this complaint and submitted two online reviews. Our goal is not to defame, but to ensure transparency and help potential customers make informed decisions.
  
  We wish to reiterate our disappointment with the service provided by Hewitt-Messenger Well Drilling & Pump Service, particularly regarding their handling of our well chlorination process and the lack of clear communication. We are still seeking the original request for a refund as the business did not offer any alternatives for resolving this dispute in their initial response
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******** *******

  

  Business response

  07/20/2023

  Additional Information on ******* Rejection of Response Items:

  Firstly:  Customer was correct in stating Mr. ********** was not the one who discussed the UV Disinfecting Process. That occurred in a conversation ***** ****** (Hewitt-Messenger Office Manager) and ******* ******* had when it was explained to her Hewitt-Messenger could disinfect the water well but would have to wait for the Senior Water Conditioning Technician to return from medical leave to perform  a site visit to be sure if and which units would work in their application. The decision was made to proceed with the water well disinfection with the understanding the estimate or quote for the UV installation would be generated with the return of the technician to active working status. The customer had already made the decision to not utilize Hewitt-Messenger services after our technician returned to work. No need to give an estimate was dictated by the customers' decision to not utilize Hewitt-Messenger services.
  

  Secondly: In response to giving a time frame for the water to remain in the lines, nobody knows or can guarantee what the necessary time is. Many variables including active disinfection concentrations, types of bacteria and amounts of bacteria make it absolutely certain that this "hold" time cannot be verified to guaranty total disinfection. The disinfection of the water in the well and well bore itself is a verified and known process with the regulations and guidelines to insure complete bacterial removal at the time of well disinfection. This does not include the lines or home fixtures/outlets. The Health Department Representative did give some good advise and also advise that could possibly lead to very serious health issues if the amounts of active disinfectants remained after an insufficient purging of the remaining "active" disinfectant. Testing the water for remaining "active" disinfectant before use is the only method to insure levels are safe.

  Lastly:  The stating of ******* ******* actions as a "campaign" is correct. The online postings came before the requested complaint response time agreed to by the customer with the Better Business Bureau was up.. These actions would also conclude that the Better Business Bureau was being utilized to discredit **************** without the possibility of a positive resolution.

  To summarize our response is to say we have shown that the well was disinfected per Missouri Department of Natural Resources Regulations and Guidelines. The remainder of the disinfection process is totally variable dependent and therefore any "guaranteed" bacteria removal process is not correct. No refund will be considered at this time.
  

   

   

  Customer response

  07/21/2023

  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  We understand that there are indeed various factors that could impact the success of a well disinfection process. The nature of this process and its inherent variables make it difficult to guarantee complete disinfection at all times. It's also clear from your account that your team took the necessary steps and followed the correct guidelines set by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
  
  We would like to emphasize, however, that clear communication with customers is essential, especially in cases like this where the process may be complex and technical. Our frustration stems from a lack of understanding or communication about the potential challenges and outcomes associated with well disinfection. It might be helpful in future interactions to make this very clear to your clients, setting realistic expectations from the start and providing them with clearer communication on steps that will improve their chances on a more positive outcome.
  
  We acknowledge your position on the refund request and understand the variable nature of the disinfection process you've outlined. However, our primary concern was the assurance of a bacteria-free water source for our household. Given the presence of bacteria post-treatment, the original service aim was not fully met.
  
  In our initial interaction and during the purchasing process, it was never mentioned that the bacteria removal could not be guaranteed. This is an important piece of information that could have significantly impacted our decision on how we engaged with your services. In light of this, we entered into the agreement with the understanding that the result would be bacteria-free water.
  
  Since the result was unsatisfactory, we believe it is reasonable to revisit the topic of a refund.
  
  
  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. ↩