Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  04/22/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  see Attached document

  On November 5, 2021 , we closed on the sale of a home located at ***** * *********** **** ***** ***** ** *****. The property is served by a septic system. Prior to closing, the buyers obtained a Septic System Evaluation Report from River City Septic & Excavating (River City). A copy of that report, dated 9/2/21 is attached. At the bottom of page 4 of the report, two code violations were noted. The first was a need to pump the septic tank. The second was to repair a broken or buried chlorine feeder tube.
  According to the real estate sales contract, we were required to pay for these repairs.
  Attached is an Estimate from River City dated 9/3/21 for the repairs. The estimate was $410 to pump the septic tank, and $400 for the chlorine feeder repair. Please note that the Estimate did state that if River City was not able to fix this by hand and a mini excavator was required, there would be an additional $300-$500 charge. On 10/12/21 we signed a contract with River City for $810 for the repairs. This contract also noted the potential $300-$500 additional cost if an excavator was required. The contract was also signed by Clifton Perry, whom I believe is the owner of River City, A copy of this contract is attached.
  River City pumped the septic tank prior to closing. The $410 fee for this service is not disputed. Due to excessively wet weather, the chlorine feeder tube could not be completed before closing. Per our contract with River City, we agreed to escrow 1.5 times the amount of the Estimate at closing. As the high range of the Estimate included up to $500 for use of an excavator, 1.5 times $1 ,310, a total of $1 ,965, was held in escrow from our sale proceeds. The funds were held by Attorney Michael Honegger (Honegger), whose firm conducted the closing.
  In early March of this year, weather conditions allowed completion of the chlorine feeder tube repair by ***** ***** ** ******** ***** **** *ssued an Invoice for $1 ,400.16 for the repairs. A copy of the Invoice is attached. The Invoice was received by ********** ****** and paid on 3/16/22 from our escrow proceeds. We were not provided a copy of the Invoice, nor did we approve it, prior to issuance of the payment by ********** ******.
  Upon receipt of a check for the unused portion of the escrow funds from ********** ******, we requested to see a copy of the Invoice. We noted it included a $620 charge for "Excavator 4 hours, dig up chlorine tank 5-6' deep, clean repair flush and flow test". We asked a neighbor who lives next door to the Lamplighter property if he saw any evidence of use of an excavator, such as tracks or disturbed soil. He said no and sent photos of the back yard where the septic system is located evidencing this fact. Another neighbor who works from home and has a clear view of the back yard of the Lamplighter house said he saw two men working there, but no excavator used.
  We contacted ********** ****** with this information. They contacted River City to ask why $620 was charged for an excavator that was not used. In their email response to ********** ******, River City states "We did not use the excavator.River City also references in that email an updated Estimate sent to the realtor 11/1/21. A copy of the emails is attached. I contacted our real estate agent, Aubrey O'Brien, regarding this Estimate, She stated her office received the updated estimate and informed River City is was not acceptable. The updated estimate was not shared with us, and we did not execute a contract with River City other than the one we signed 10/12/21. In a subsequent email, River City stated they discovered a broken discharge line that they dug by hand and repaired. Please note that the invoice includes $232.00 for labor and $138.16 for parts. These amounts are not disputed by us.
  Subsequent to Honegger's payment to River City, and an email exchange between Mr. Honegger and Mr. Perry, Aubrey O'Brien attempted on numerous occasions to speak with Mr., Pery, but he has never contacted her.
  We believe River City has improperly invoiced, and been paid, $620 for use of an excavator they admit, in fact, was not used. We ask that River City immediately return this sum to us.
  Thank you for your review and consideration of this matter.
  
  

  

  Business response

  04/26/2022

  Good morning 

  attached is the response of River City Excavating to the complaint as well as supporting photo.  

  ***** *** ***** *****

  Dear Sir or Madam,
  In response to the said complaint, the realtor called multiple times for this repair in the beginning when these deficiencies were found. We all agreed that it was not the right time of the year to conduct these repairs, so here comes spring and multiple phone calls and maybe spurred on by the new owner over concerns about his septic system function. Nevertheless, a crew was sent to do the repairs. When arrived customer was very concerned about their yard because of wetness, Since there was a 2 man crew they decided to attempt to do the repairs by hand, which they were successful. After digging chlorine feeder by hand, cleaning and repairing and recharging, AS per ILLINOIS state code, the chlorine feeder assembly needs to be tested and verified for flow and proper operation. The crew conducted this flow test and found that the discharge was discharging in another location other than out the discharge pipe. After probing and investigation it was fount that the discharge pipe was breached. Again, this would have normally been a mini excavator operation, but again customer really did not want excavator in yard if at all possible. So the crew took spades and shovels and dug back on the effluent discharge pipe and installed new 12' section of discharge and then recovered. This concluded the job and the repairs. This is why 1.5 x are held in escrow. No one can see under ground, especially in winter, new home owner was standing there and of course per IL code Discharge must be flow tested and verified. All of the pictures were sent to the Attorneys office, with a description. We corresponded with them and will include also that correspondence So, in conclusion, we are bound by the Illinois code to follow their guidelines, which we did. New owner was there as witness, The attorneys office that we corresponded with was completely happy with picture and work description and paid our bill. They also noted that this realtor wand customer were difficult to deal with. Also as a note, monies are held in escrow based of of and estimate plus 11/2 times all these after mentioned reasons. The previous homeowner at this point is not in control of home or escrow money. It is the sole responsibility of contractor to do all repairs according to Illinois state code and the new homeowner has to call the title company to release the funds, or attorneys office.
  
  The previous homeowner has closed on this property, received his funds and has agreed to these conditions. So 1m confused on why selling realtor and previous home owner are saying that we didn't get their approval etc. The facts are the facts. Pictures are taken, new home owner as witness, and all proper correspondence with pictures etc sent and verified with attorney and they were satisfied with work and final bill.
  Please see our billing statement, and bill deductions for none use of excavator, even though hand work takes loner and excavator was already trucked to job.
  ******* ***** ***** **** ********** *** ****** ********

  
  

  Customer response

  04/30/2022

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Mr. ******* response contains one significant factual error.  He states the funds held in escrow were not ours and we had no right to control over them.  The funds held in escrow were in fact withheld at closing from our sales proceeds.  The escrow agent had a duty to make sure that the buyers were satisfied with the repairs, AND we were aware of the final bill before paying it from these funds.  Neither I nor our real estate agent were contacted prior to the bill being paid.  I have addressed that issue with the attorney who handled our closing and our escrow funds.

  
  

  Mr. *****’s response also again confirms my assertion that is the basis of my complaint.  He states that an excavator was not used to complete the repairs, a statement previously made by him and others at his company.  Despite the fact that’s an excavator was not used, Mr. *****’s bill erroneously included a $620 charge for excavation, above and beyond the parts and labor included on his bill.

  
  

  The only satisfactory resolution to this situation is for Mr. ***** to refund the $620 he erroneously charged and was erroneously paid.

  
  

  **** ******

  

  Business response

  05/10/2022

  As we stated previously, the word excavation means to dig, it does not necessarily mean that an excavator was used.  This was explained to the parties.  We excavated (dug) by hand at the property and included a photo of a service tech with a shovel of where the excavation was done (by hand) – the photo that Mr. ****** provided was of the vents—no excavation was done at the vents- as it was not even on the repair estimate.    This was also explained to the realtor, Mr. ****** and the Attorney that was handling the closing. 

  Customer response

  05/10/2022

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Mr. ***** seems to have finally settled on a story he believes supports his erroneous bill.  However, his story does not conform to the estimate we signed with him, which stated there would be an additional $300 - $500 expense if an excavator was needed (in fact he charged $620).  Nor does it conform with logic as his bill included a line for labor, which includes his employee(s) digging with shovels.  Mr. ***** needs to return the $620 erroneously charged and paid to him.

  **** ******

*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. ↩