ComplaintsforEvergreen On Site

• Initial Complaint

  06/14/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Recently purchased *********************************************************. After inhabiting the house for a total of 4 days, the toilet and shower backed up sewage into the house.A Time of Sale OSS Inspection Report dated 2/13/20923 Application No: ****** was filed by ******************************* of this company stating the system was fully inspected and functioning properly.I've had two different plumbing/septic companies who have both looked at the non-functioning system and neither believe a correct inspection was performed as recently as Feb 2023.I've tried contacting this company twice on consecutive days and cannot reach or get a return call from anyone.

  Business response

  06/15/2023

  First and foremost, a Time of Sale OSS Inspection Report documents the condition and functionality at the time of service, and does not constitute any sort of guarantee, warranty, or certification, either express or implied. This is evidenced by the clause that the *******-King ****** ********** of ****** Health includes on every report form, which states: This report indicates certain characteristics of the onsite sewage system at the time of visit. In no way is this report a guarantee of operation or future performance.
  

  Homeowners who are unfamiliar with the proper usage of an on-site septic system often overwhelm the system upon moving in to a new home.The first week of occupancy of a new residence usually involves marathon cleaning and laundry sessions, which can easily lead to a hydraulic overload of the system. My suspicion is that this may have been the case here, as evidenced by the statement made that the system backed up after 4 days of usage. Were there a latent issue with the functionality of the system, it would have manifested itself in the first day of use, if not the first few hours.
  

  Our company has periodically serviced this system since 2016 and had an established business relationship with the previous homeowner. Had there been any deficiencies that merited further investigation and/or repair,it would have made much more sense to make the sale to the previous homeowner,particularly because they were in the process of selling the home and would more or less be compelled to complete any recommended repairs.
  

  As of the time of this posting, no fewer than three representatives of our company have communicated with this individual regarding their concerns. The most recent of these communications occurred with ********************************* himself, who is not only a licensed On Site Maintainer and Master Installer, but who is also the Field Manager and Senior Technician for our organization. During that conversation, the complainant expressed that the initial diagnosis of his system following the backing up event was not conducted by a septic professional, but by a rooter service. The complainant then relayed that an actual septic service provider completed what sounded like a cursory investigation of the system but it cannot be established whether that individual is qualified or licensed to provide commentary on the quality of an inspection, particularly one that was performed 4.5 months prior.
  

  With respect to the complainants desired settlement, here is what our company has already completed and/or offered:
  1) Full explanation of their inspection process and results specifically relating to this property this was accomplished by way of the 3 conversations various members of our staff have already held with complainant.
  2) On-site inspection to reconcile their inspection with the current situation Our customer service representative offered to book an appointment with the complainant for the day following their initial contact. Complainant insisted on immediate service. Complainant was informed that all of our service technicians had already clocked out and gone home for the day, so same day service was not possible. Complainant then demanded to speak with a manager or supervisor, and was told that doing so would not cause a technician to magically become available. Our customer service representative also advised complainant that any site visits to their property would be charged a normal service call price. Complainant disagreed with the necessity to pay for a site visit, and was advised that inspection services do not carry any sort of a warranty. Complainant declined to book a site visit.
  3) Remedy the problem it can only be assumed that complainant intends to request that our company be financially responsible for replacing his 50 year old system. The nature of the conversation with our Field Manager, in which complainant expressed having other issues related to a house that is several decades old (i.e. old cast iron plumbing) led him to believe that the complainant is essentially looking to assign blame and acquire services and/or materials for free.
  

  Our company has already attempted to resolve the matter with complainant to no avail. The offer we have previously made still stands i.e.booking a service call appointment at list price but complainant declined. 

  Customer response

  06/16/2023

   
  Complaint: 20187482
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  There are a lot of incorrect assumptions in their response.

  No, there was not a lot of cleaning going on in the first few days the house was occupied nor were there any loads of laundry done as the washer had not even been connected at that point.

  Further, no I am not looking to assign blame for any problems with the house. I'm nearly trying to ascertain how the inspection was actually completed. There seems to be conflicting information in the inspection report vs what we're seeing in person. Specifically, the main sewer line coming out of the house was cracked but more importantly, the Distribution Box had previously cracked and was mostly disintegrated. It's hard to understand how the company could have done a complete inspection including specifically noting the Distribution Box was Fully Inspected without actually digging it up. Upon digging it up it would have been obvious to anyone the box was no longer functioning correctly.

  I don't believe the inspection was completed as filed.

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

  Business response

  06/22/2023

  The inspection conducted at this property, as with any other property we service, was completed in accordance with all state and county regulations.Each system component was examined and tested for functionality. The distribution box may not have looked immaculate, but it did withstand administration of a 150 gallon stress test at the time of the inspection, which is what is considered by the county health department to have passed muster. Our company feels that it is unethical to recommend repairing or replacing any component that is demonstrably operational.
  To the other point regarding the cracked mainline the building sewer is not a component that is required to be exposed and physically examined during the course of an inspection. In the cases where a homeowner is present for the inspection, an inspector may request that they flush a wad of toilet paper while the tank lids are open so the inspector can observe fluid and material entering the tank correctly. Even in cases where a flush test is completed,the structural integrity of the pipe itself cannot be ascertained. The only way to inspect the condition of the mainline plumbing is with the use of a line camera, which is neither a requirement nor a commonly utilized tool in the industry.
  In closing, the inspection was completed as described on the report. 

  Customer response

  06/29/2023

   
  Complaint: 20187482
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Although some of their statements may be true when read in isolation, it's obvious they did not follow the King ****** Septic Inspection Requirements.

  The biggest example of this is they indicated the Distribution Box was "Fully Inspected", per KC, this requires they dig up the box and visually inspect it in addition to a flow test. Yes, I'm not surprised they were able to get 150 gallons to water to flow through the distribution box as a large portion of the box was disintegrated. So yes, water may have flow through but it clearly was never fully inspected via a visual inspection.
  
  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. ↩