ComplaintsforForrest Shoemaker Air Conditioning Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  02/02/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  January 14, 2022. I had a slab leak. They did not fix it. I still have a leak. They want to charge me to return and fix a possible additional leak they most likely caused due to not doing a pressure test and also they did not get a city inspector to ok the job. Had another company come out and tell me their work was shotty and rather than dig up my floor they could have repiped the hot water line and saved me money along with saving my floor and the horrendous mess I had to endure. I'm so livid that they will not refund my money or correct and fix my issue

  Business response

  10/17/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/02/04) */ We received a call 1/13/22 from Mrs. ********* requesting repair of an under the floor slab domestic hot water leak. We encouraged her repeatedly to employ American Leak Detection to pin point the leak location and she refused, insisting she knew the location due to the floor being hot. We arrived the next morning and used a thermal imaging gun and confirmed the location pointed out to us. After excavation we found the leak, repaired it, turned the water on to conduct a pressure test using city pressure and watched the meter flow indicator for a period of time and confirmed there was not any water flow. We then refilled the hole and properly replaced the concrete slab. By 7:00 am. on 2/1 Mrs. ********* had called our HVAC emergency tech twice demanding we call immediately; the office opens at 8:00 am. She called the office at 8:06 am. upset wanting to know why we had not called back and insisting we did not fix the leak saying she could hear the leak through the walls. We offered to come out and to check our work by excavating and checking the repair; if our repair was defective there would be no charge to repair it, if the leak was other that the repair we had made we would repair it and they would be responsible to pay for the work. It was difficult speaking with Mrs. ********* as she was extremely upset and berating those who spoke with her in between threatening to sue, file a complaint with BBB and go to the City. She pointedly rejected our offer to check the work at our cost unless it was determined there was another leak, then she would need to pay for the work. She called an additional 5 times and her brother called once during the day, each time demanding we fix the leak at our cost and verbally abusing those they spoke with. During these calls she denied we had requested her to have American Leak Detection pin point the leak before we came, even though this was thankfully a non-issue this time; she claimed another plumbing company came out and said we had done everything wrong, but would not share who the company was so we could confirm what was being shared. She also said American Leak Detection was coming out in the morning to locate the leak. In summary, our offer to stand behind our work by checking our repair at no cost to her unless the leak was a different one than what we repaired was firmly rejected. She was verbally out of control from the initial call and berating those she yelled at and used offensive language while we were calmly attempting to have a mutually beneficial conversation so we could resolve her issue. Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2022/02/09) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) First of all, I actually never refused calling American Leak Detection. I asked the receptionist Elish if they could find the leak without me calling them and trying to save 400.00. My husband is not in the greatest of health so I need to save money when I can. She said they could fix it and their plumbers fix problems from other plumbing companies and also what homeowner wouldn't show where the possibility of a leak is occurring. Both my husband and myself were here for the long day. They were supposed to get a permit from the City of Tulsa, they did not. No person came in and inspected their work. Yes, I was told that by another plumbing company and just because they asked which company, I don't have to tell them that on demand. Of course, I'm irate, they didn't fix my very expensive fix and what consumer wouldn't go back to the company and complain. Also please note Elish would never but once connect us with someone who has the knowledge of plumbing. We were finally connected with Richard Shoemaker who was less than willing to come out without threatening us with a additional cost if it is not their repair. He even said if they dug it up and it's not their repair. He told my husband he would not replace the concrete or cover it up. As far as me calling numerous times, I'm not going to be taken advantage of by any company. My home has been disrupted by all of this, yes I'm upset. My brother has done this type of work, we did not berate her. My mother was in the background saying she doesn't know what she's talking about. My family is livid that I've had to endure this chaos. Elish was as she even proclaimed she was the "gatekeeper" so in saying that we could never talk to anyone that REALLY could help us. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth for a consumer to get a company to act on their warranty which is a year. This has cost me so much more money that I didn't have just because they didn't want to do the RIGHT THING!! I even asked for my money back from Richard Shoemaker and if pay someone else to do the repair. He said that's not in his control. His name is in the business name. Come on!! A refund would be much better for us and then we could pay someone else who we could trust more. Even when I was talking with Richard, I told him I had contacted the city inspector and they needed a permit. He said no they don't!! I was told by the City inspector YES YOU DO!! Richard said he spoke with the inspection, acted like it was taking care of and he had spoken to them. I immediately after hanging up called Steven Scott the City of Tulsa inspector and asked if he had contacted them. He said they did not. So he LIED there. I feel like they just took our money and there's no resolution yet. I've had to endure days of turning off water, turning off the hot water, turning it back on when needed. It is a very big pain. As far as profane language I did not but I did yell because I'm upset!! Additional information received 2-10-22: After the City of Tulsa shut down the job yesterday. I have yet to hear from Shoemaker Plumbing. They were here yesterday at 8:03 in the morning. They should have called me back yesterday because they had all day to think about a alternative but the didn't. I'm having to deal with a hole in my floor, having to turn the hot water on and then off. This is a awful situation to be in. People need water resources for daily function. Just give me my money back and I'll hire someone else. Also, I feel like they are slow to react because they are trying to punish me for calling the City of Tulsa. Talked with Richard Shoemaker again this morning. He's claiming this is not there leak. This was caused because of their repair. It's in the same hole. He wants to charge me again for a repair. He doesn't care that I don't have water. I want my money back. They caused this!!!! Again there was no inspection, it was covered up. I don't care if this company has been in business since 1925, they haven't fixed my problem. (please see attached) Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2022/02/25) */ The focus of this response will be on the facts more than the difficult interaction with Mrs. *********. This request for service was our first contact with her as she and the work location were not in our customer base. In the notes our Service Dispatch person made of each call from Mrs. ********* she noted that on the initial call for service Mrs. ********* did not want to involve and would not call American Leak Detection and did not want us to call them, but wanted us to come out as she knew the leak was at the warm spot on the floor. Mrs. ********* knew of American Leak Detection and their fee structure and despite our request to involve them she was unwilling to do this. This contradicts her statement that she "never refused" to call them as she was insistent that we come out and look for and repair the leak at the warm spot on the floor without American Leak Detection determining the leak location before our coming. She was not going to call them and incur their additional cost and did not want to incur the cost through us involving them. To the untrained the warm spot on the floor had to be the location of the leak, but in reality this is not necessarily correct. The water from underground leaks often runs along the outside of the pipe for varying distances before finding another avenue of less resistance in the soil to follow, hence where the leak seems to manifest itself is often not the location of the leak. This is why we asked Mrs. ********* to call American Leak Detection to pinpoint the source of the leak with their ultra-sonic equipment, as water leaking from a pipe creates a noise at the leak and their equipment can define the source location as opposed to the seemly physical location a warm floor may indicate after the water runs underground seeking the path of least resistance. Using American Leak Detection or another company with similar capabilities to locate the leak before we commence an under the floor slab leak repair can save the customer money by creating a small targeted work area thereby benefiting the customer and hence why this is our preferred method for addressing underfloor leaks. When Mrs. ********* initially called requesting we repair her leak our plumbing department head, Richard Shoemaker, was out of the office most of the day. Service dispatch understands the issue of what is involved in an underground leak situation and a plumber or the department manager is not required to understand the procedure to address scheduling this work. Contrary to Mrs. *********'s assertion, she did speak to Richard before we came out the first time and he also encouraged her to call American Leak Detection. He also spoke with Mrs. ********* before dispatching plumbers to check if our repair was defective or if there was a new leak. Richard, though he has the same last name as myself does not have an ownership interest in this company and therefore follows our processes of how we approach underground leaks and handle warranty. Yes, Service Dispatch told Mrs. ********* we would come back to check the leak and cover all costs under warranty if our repair was defective, but if our repair was holding properly she would be responsible for the work, which naturally would include removing the floor, excavating, locating the leak, etc. Richard also spoke with Mrs. ********* concerning this before we returned to see if our work was defective and therefore under warranty reiterating the same thing Service Dispatch shared. Apparently Mrs. *********, per her latest response, sees this as a threat, which it is not. We wanted to be clear in expressing what is standard warranty procedure of this and other companies where the company is responsible for costs to repair their own defective material and workmanship. The company is not responsible for work, new or existing, unrelated to the previous work that is under warranty or for additional work. If a warranty check at the customer's request involves a significant amount of work to ascertain if the repair is defective these costs become part of the customers responsibility if the repair is determined to be functioning properly and not under warranty. Removing and replacing the floor slab would be an example of this. Yes, Richard shared we would not make slab repairs after checking for the leak if it was determined to not be a warrantied item unless she provided assurance of payment as the customer would become responsible for costs associated with non-warranty work. Mrs. ********* did not provide any assurance of payment for non-warranty work, but just the opposite stating the second leak was our fault and responsibility even before a warranty check was conducted. Mrs. ********* told Richard that American Leak Detection was coming out the next morning. Plumbers were sent to Mrs. *********'s as first call on the day following American Leak Detection having been on site despite not receiving any assurance of payment for non-warranty work. Our plumbers found a small portion of the floor had been removed by American Leak Detection and a partial excavation. We pressurized the line, and determined there was a leak. We excavated further and found an existing compression fitting leaking under a wall at the opposite end of our previous excavation for the repair. This compression coupling was not even seen during the first repair as it was not leaking. During our initial repair we had not excavated over to and under the wall where this compression coupling was located as we excavated in the direction the flow of water was coming from which is away from the compression fitting along the pipe and toward a door way about two feet or more away from this fitting. We would have repaired the compression fitting at the same time we made the first repair if it had been leaking, but it apparently was not leaking. As stated in our previous reply, after we completed the initial repair, the water was turned on to pressurize the pipe to perform a leak check and there were not any signs of water leakage at the repair or in the excavated area and the flow indicator on the water meter was checked and there was not any flow through the water meter. Our repair was verified to not be leaking when we returned to check our repair after American Leak Detection found this additional leak further down the pipe from our repair. We did not make the repair to the compression coupling as we were able to adjust our service commitments that day to work in making a warranty check, but not a repair that day. We had scheduled time for a repair the next day and would have gone back to make the repair if Mrs. ********* had approved that any non-warranty work would be paid. Mrs. Teagarden was insistent we fix this second leak without accepting responsibility to pay for the work. Our plumbers and Richard reiterated that this was a second leak and unrelated to the initial repaired leak and that we would need a payment method on file before proceeding with any repairs. She declined to do this. Regarding the need to get a City inspection, we understood that for a simple leak repair a permit and inspection was not necessary, apparently we were incorrect. The initial repair was performed on a time and material basis so naturally the Permit and inspection costs would add to the customers invoice amount and there would be additional labor involved in meeting the usual inspection requirements of meeting the inspector on site after the repair for him to physically inspect it. This would also delay refilling the excavation and repairing the floor, as inspections are usually next day at best. We are now up to date on the present City requirements. Mrs. ********* was not open to the thought there was an additional leak this company was not responsible for and was unwilling to accept financial responsibility if this was the case before we came out to check the repair or while we were there. We came out and checked our work and determined the leak was not a warranty situation. We did this without Mrs. ********* accepting responsibility for non-warranty work. We had not worked on the compression coupling that was leaking and our leak test after the initial repair did not show a leak, but showed there were no leaks. We performed a repair service for Mrs. ********* that was properly completed. We rearranged our schedules to expedite service for her. Richard did not tell Mrs. ********* "there is not a leak" but that our repair was not leaking. I am regretful of Mrs. *********'s family situation including finances and the water conditions, but we did not create this situation and should not be expected to perform additional work without payment. We checked on her second water leak without any assurance of her accepting responsibility for work not associated with a warranty repair without cost to her. We would have made the repair if Mrs. ********* had provided assurance we would be paid for the additional work. ***Document Attached*** Consumer Response /* (4200, 17, 2022/02/28) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Let me say first, there is so much untruth to all Shoemaker Plumbing has said. Again, the initial call was when I talked to Elish. We did discuss American Leak Detection but and I say "but" I said I preferred if they could do it I would save around 400.00. She said that their plumbers could do it and have done it numerous times." Their plumbers fix what others plumbers don't." Noting that also I had no conversations with anyone else about American Leak Detection including Richard. They came out and DID NOT follow the City of Tulsa's permit laws. We had no inspector come to our house and inspect their job. My husband or myself never saw where the leak was. I just saw a hole with water in it. I've learned since most plumbing companies show their clients the leak and even will leave the piping with their customer as proof. They covered it up, sloppily did not even smooth the concrete out. It had NO INSPECTION. Every professional person that came out after Shoemaker looked at the repair with a shake of their head. Thinking apparently their thoughts on American Leak Detection coming out all those supposed times they had asked me. Which isn't true. I guess their not addressing that American Leak Detection said "it's on their repair" when I was forced to spend more money because they messed the whole repair . As far as the day they came out the second time. I'm far from a stupid person when it comes to tools. They were discussing going to get a wrench in the truck. It is also a total fabrication that they did a pressure test on this visit. They did not dig anymore or open the hole up further. THEY JUST LOOKED AND TALKED ABOUT THE LEAK! Not at any time did they say it wasn't their leak. They were intending on coming back in and doing something and then I had made arrangements for the City of Tulsa to come while they were here. As they were exiting out my garage the City was coming in my front door. The inspector immediately went to the hole in my floor and also shook his head and then came over to me and said fill me in. I said they had not gotten a permit for their work initially and he said "ok, I'm giving them a official notice" which he did. Since all these has happened I have lost income, the convience of hot water, the money drain of all the people in this field I've had to call and paid them also. The disorganization of my household. There was a leak the whole entire time. We just noticed the warm spot a few days after. I'm also sickened by Richard's constant derogatory comments of my complaints and insulting my behavior. I am the one that was charged for a repair of almost a 1000.00 that was not done lawfully and correctly. Anyone would have complained about this totally botched job! Again there was only one leak!! It just worsened over the course of the days following the supposed repair!! They totally missed this one! ***Attached is the invoice and technical report for services performed by American Leak Detection.***

*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. ↩