Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  05/16/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  On February 10th, we engaged Roto-Rooter water restoration for water mitigation in our basement. At the time quote was provided, the agent conducted water readings and took measurements, so when he gave ** a quote of $14,000 to $17,000, we believed that our bill would be somewhere in this price range. However, at the end of our service we received a bill for over $25,000! We had NO extenuating circumstances during our service, nothing that would warrant such a significant cost overrun. I have asked numerous times via email for an explanation as to why our bill almost doubled, however I cannot seem to get a answer, other than that was an estimate. This feels like a bait and switch. We were ok the estimate and chose them based on what they quoted to **, perhaps we would have made a different choice if we had known the that the estimate would vary $8000...

  Business response

  05/10/2023

  Our location of Roto-Rooter does not service this area nor have we worked with this client. We are in ******* **. I believe this was sent to our location in error.  Can you please direct this to the appropriate location?

  Customer response

  05/15/2023

   Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

  Business response

  05/16/2023

  Roto-Rooter takes pride in the services we perform for our customers.  We follow all water mitigation standards as outlined in the ***** S500 and all applicable OSHA and ANSI standards.  Our Field Supervisors are typically the first onsite and are there to provide a baseline evidence trail for the homeowner, insurance company, and Roto-Rooter to start work.  A pricing estimate is provided during that initial inspection based on assumptions of standard building practices.  Our teams arrive to start the water extraction, demolition, and clean up of the home.  We set equipment necessary to dry the structure (per the S500) and monitor the equipment over the next few days to ensure the structure is drying appropriately.  Once the structure is deemed dry, we create a Mitigation Document with our final invoice that is sent to the licensed insurance adjuster for review and payment.  During that review, the adjuster scrutinizes the invoice to ensure no fraud is being committed by Roto-Rooter and that all mitigation standards have been followed.  If the adjuster deems that revisions are necessary to the invoice, he/she will respond directly to Roto-Rooter to ask for clarification.  Once the adjuster is satisfied that the claim is correct, payment is authorized and sent directly to Roto-Rooter.

  Occasionally, as is the case with *********************, the payment that was supposed to have been sent to Roto-Rooter was sent to her.  That payment was to settle a debt for work already performed and authorized by a licensed adjuster.  There is no negotiating at this point, as that is handled directly between the adjuster and Roto-Rooter.  ********************* is trying to withhold funds owed to Roto-Rooter.

  I have spent the last week or so trying to explain to ********************* and her husband that the estimated amount is not binding, as the work performed must meet standards and there are instances where more demo or more equipment is needed.  Those decisions are made on the spot by our ***** certified technicians.  Should there be any concerns about the cost of the job going beyond what we initially assumed, a change order is signed.  ********** these change orders are signed because additional damage is found in rooms not previously deemed affected.  *********** they are signed because standard building practices were not used during the construction of the home (double drywall, spray foam insulation, etc), which would not be apparent to a Field Supervisor.  Finally, these change orders may be signed if there is a need for more equipment based on the actual internal structural materials that were used (again, something the Field Supervisor would not be able to determine).  ********************* signed the change order to acknowledge these changes.  The change order was not due to the scope of work changing (as the damage in the home was the same), but because the amount of work and equipment was different in the same affected areas.  

  Had the adjuster found reasons to reduce our invoice, he/she would have negotiated that difference directly with **, as happens multiple times each week.  In this case, the adjuster agreed with our scope of work, demolition that was done, and equipment that was set to dry the structure.  The structure was deemed to be dry and a certificate of satisfaction was signed by the homeowner.  The full payment that was authorized by State Farm is due to Roto-Rooter immediately.

  Customer response

  05/16/2023

   
  Complaint: 20033307
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  The amount in question as provided by Roto-Rooter is NOT the amount approved by our insurance company. We are prepared to pay the amount that State Farm approved; however, NOW Roto-Rooter is stating that the amount State Farm approved is incorrect and once again they are not able or willing to explain the difference.  It is our understanding that a variance in pricing beyond the estimate would be due to the amount of equipment used and the drying time.  When the estimate was done, there was no standing water because I had already extracted the water; therefore, it is assumed that when Roto-Rooter estimated the amount of equipment needed, this was taken into account at that time.  No one ever said to ** that there was a miscalculation with the amount equipment required. Also, our basement was dry within the agreed and allotted time, we did not request or need any additional drying time.  So, I am unsure of what events happened and "changed" for said change order.  We are in conversations with our insurance company and our issue is currently being reviewed, we hope to have a resolution soon.  We have been transparent with our questions and concerns from day one and believe that anyone who receives a bill that is significantly higher than they expected would have similar questions and would want answers; however, Roto-Rooter's posture with ** has been condescending and threatening.  We simply want to have this resolved fairly so that we can all move forward.
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

  Business response

  05/17/2023

  It has been made clear to Roto-Rooter that ********************* was not, in fact, paid the full balance of the invoice, but was instead paid a bit over $21,000 from State Fram.  Roto-Rooter has been in contact with State Farm regarding the discrepancy in the amount paid vs the amount invoiced, and State Farm's response as of 5/17/23 is that a field adjuster made revisions to the invoice without consulting Roto-Rooter and authorized a payment to the homeowner for that amount around $21,000.  The desk adjuster at State Farm (who has been handling this claim) is working to get clarification from the field adjuster as to why the revisions were made and to understand why payment was issued without our agreement. This is an ongoing discussion within our office, and we are communicating with the desk adjuster daily for updates.

  In the meantime, the good news is ********************* has been paid out over $21,000 to date for mitigation, so that amount can be paid to Roto-Rooter immediately.  When/if a revision of the invoice is agreed upon that results in a higher balance due to Roto-Rooter, we will settle with ********************* on that amount separately.  The amount due to Roto-Rooter will not be less than the amount ********************* was paid already, so that amount can be paid immediately.

  Our company performs emergency services to thousands of homeowners every year with the expectation that we will be compensated for the work we perform.  This work was performed in February and we have not received a payment as of May - 3 months later.  Meanwhile, the homeowner received a partial payment (potentially a full payment, pending review) from the insurance company and refuses to pay ** for work already completed. We demand that a payment in the full amount the insurance company has allotted to date is made.  We will work with the homeowner directly to collect any further monies if they are deemed due.

  Customer response

  05/22/2023

   
  Complaint: 20033307
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Roto Rooter still has not substantiated the additional cost.  Our insurance company sent multiple field managers to our residence during this time, so they are aware in real time, what was done and what was not done. Consequentially, they found that some of the charges Roto Rooter submitted are incorrect. Since Roto Rooters last response, we have had numerous conversations with State Farm regarding work done and they have confirmed (again) that those charges are incorrect. We are intent on receiving an accurate bill that reflects the work completed; however, Roto Rooter's response is seemingly focused on how much our insurance company is paying. We are prepared to pay our invoice when we are provided with a corrected bill. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

  Business response

  05/23/2023

  Roto-Rooter's work is always justified and supported with evidence.  The work we perform is to standards and will always ensure a timely and accurate outcome.

  These homeowners have shown clear disregard for our organization and the processes of working with insurance companies, but as a professional organization, we will accept the insurance revision as it stands so we can move forward with our business.  A final invoice will be delivered within an hour and payment is expected today.

  Customer response

  05/25/2023

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. I do not agree with the implication that we acted unreasonable.  Moreover, this discrepancy was not disputed in a vacuum because our insurance company was actively involved so I am unclear of what process we disregarded.  That said, our issue has been resolved, we received our bill today and we paid it today.

  
  
  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. ↩