Plumbing firms pile up consumer complaints

Cheryl Boyer was in her bathroom last summer when a disturbing sound caused her to check her basement, where she found water cascading down the walls.

Distraught at the prospect of going a weekend with no water and a flooded basement, Boyer started dialing plumbers. The first two she called couldn't make it. The third could.

Thus began a business relationship with a company called Plumbfast that Boyer says she regrets to this day. A complaint detailing her experience is among the latest on file with the state Attorney General's Office consumer-protection division, whose investigators are well aware of the Clearview, Snohomish County, plumbing company and have been monitoring its activity.

Records show 18 complaints against Plumbfast since 2000, including 10 last year. That puts Plumbfast on a short list of specialty contractors — primarily plumbers and electricians — with complaints that reach into the double digits in a single year. The only other plumber is South West Plumbing & Waterheaters of Seattle, which drew 11 complaints last year and 50 since 1996.

The vast majority of plumbers draws only one or two complaints a year — beefs that the Attorney General's Office usually attempts to mediate informally. Consumer advocates note that for each customer who complains, there are generally at least 10 who don't.

Through a spokeswoman, Plumbfast owner Toby Cyr said he was unavailable because he was busy dealing with bankruptcy-court protection. In a Dec. 31 filing, Plumbfast listed debts exceeding $700,000, including substantial debts to the Internal Revenue Service and the state Department of Revenue, and about $100,000 for Yellow Pages advertising.

Elizabeth Alverson, a customer-service representative for Plumbfast, says the company is always concerned about complaints. By the company's reckoning, she said, less than 2 percent of its customers are dissatisfied. "We are taking a look at it."

In a similar vein, Helen Kennedy, who helps handle customer complaints for South West Plumbing, said the 11 complaints on file against the company for 2003 pale in comparison with the more than 8,100 service calls it says it made last year. "Even at that, we take all our customer concerns very seriously," Kennedy said.

Some consumers say these companies routinely overcharge, brush off inquiries and complaints, and do work that sometimes falls short of professional standards.

In its advertising, Plumbfast emphasizes its willingness to quickly respond to consumers ("When others say 'Not Today' Plumbfast is ON THE WAY!!!").

Alverson estimates that Plumbfast handles 400 service calls a month, primarily in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. She said the majority are "priority calls," meaning the customer wants someone to show up right away.

That was certainly the case for Boyer and her 87-year-old mother, Lorraine, who lives with her in Snohomish.

Boyer became suspicious of the quality of the work partly because it was taking far longer to finish than promised. Boyer admits she initially agreed to pay Plumbfast's $4,500 price to fix her leak.

But she noted that she's not a plumber, and she trusted that the company's prices were competitive. She complained that the bill was more than four times what the repair job should have cost, according to estimates she says she got later from other professionals.

She further alleged that Plumbfast performed unnecessary repair work, choosing to lay all new pipe instead of locating and repairing what turned out to be a simple underground leak. She also contended that the company failed to bury new pipe to the required depth, and that the company relocated a yard faucet without her knowledge or consent.

As it has in virtually all of the complaints against it, Plumbfast filed a point-by-point answer.

In December, Dick Lachapelle, a Snohomish County inspector who looked at the work Plumbfast did for Boyer, issued a "correction" notice, saying the pipe Plumbfast laid was 8 inches too shallow to meet code.

In its responses to consumer complaints, Plumbfast notes it quotes prices up front, charges a flat fee for jobs no matter how long they take and undertakes a job only after a consumer has agreed to terms. It discounts critical opinions provided by other plumbers contacted by angry consumers after a job is done.

On its Web site, Plumbfast provides a link to "testimonials" from satisfied customers. A recent check showed just one letter, a 2002 note from an Edmonds woman who did not return a phone call from The Seattle Times.

Asked for other testimonials, the company provided phone numbers for two customers. One, Dave Lavelle of Snohomish, confirmed that he was pleased with the work Plumbfast performed putting in a sink on a rental property. He did not wish to discuss what he paid and said he did no comparison shopping.

The other, William Brown of Bellevue, said he would not do business again with Plumbfast. He confirmed he liked the work a technician did, but he thought the price was three to four times what it should have been.

Complainants on file with the Attorney General's Office include:

• Bill Williams of Edmonds, who contacted Plumbfast in July 2002 after he woke up on a Saturday to find his hot-water heater flooding his fully finished basement. He turned to the phone book and found Plumbfast's ad. The technician who showed up determined he didn't have the size tank Williams needed, so he drove to Home Depot to buy it. Before doing the work, the technician assured Williams that Plumbfast was "competitive within $100 of other Yellow Page plumbing companies," Williams said.

Williams' final bill, for a new hot-water tank, an expansion tank (which gives water a place to go to relieve pressure), and "seismic upgrade" — meaning two metal straps and four screws to secure the tank to a couple of studs — was $1,747.56.

Williams visited the Home Depot where the hot-water tank was purchased. The cost of the materials Plumbfast purchased totaled less than $375. Williams said he did price comparisons against other Yellow Page plumbers, and the quotes ranged from $718 to $999. Williams took his case to small-claims court, arguing the contract with Plumbfast was based on misleading or incorrect information. But the judge threw it out because Williams had signed off on the work done.

"I understand that people are in business to make a buck," said Williams. "But that kind of markup was just ridiculous."

In retrospect, he wishes he had taken more time to do his homework.

• Peggy Fina of Seattle, who contacted South West last spring to deal with a backed-up toilet after noticing the company's big Yellow Pages ad. She requested the piping be snaked, but South West's crew rebuffed that idea, believing the problem was related to a bathtub drain.

South West's diagnosis kept changing, according to Fina's complaint, while the projected cost to fix the problem rose to $6,500.

Two hours into the visit, South West decided it made sense to drop a snake. When it could not advance more than 10 feet, the crew suggested an underground camera inspection to identify the obstruction.

Becoming skeptical about South West's competence, Fina asked the crew leader to check with his bosses. South West was supposed to call her back. It did not.

Fina then contacted two other plumbing companies to evaluate the problem. "Both indicated that snaking and camera inspection would always be the first procedure used," Fina stated.

Fina chose to do business with one of the other plumbing companies. She also contacted her bank to stop payment on the $1,720.54 charge to South West on her credit card. She provided the bank with evidence that South West was not following industry standards; the bank reversed the charge last fall.

In a letter in the attorney general's file defending itself, South West contended it acted in good faith based on the information Fina provided, that it did no work without Fina's approval. It apologized for not calling Fina back as promised, saying it had the "wrong number" when it tried to reach her.

• Mary Ochsner of Bothell, who complained after tenants contacted Plumbfast in March 2000 about a leaking hot-water heater. The technician said the 14-year-old tank needed to be replaced. He required a $400 deposit.

The next day, the same technician returned with a new diagnosis, saying he had consulted with his supervisor and would do a "major electrical rebuild instead," according to the complaint.

Three weeks later, the heater quit working, causing the tenants again to contact Plumbfast, who instructed them to repeatedly push the tank's "reset" button. Within a month, the tenants smelled burning wires. Ochsner then hired a new plumber, who found all the original wiring, not new wiring.

That plumber, Steve Thomson of Redmond Plumbing, recently recalled the occasion, saying that "quite clearly, nothing was done. ... You could tell that the work that Plumbfast said they had done was not done."

Still, Plumbfast insists it did the work, alleging in its written response to Ochsner's complaint that she had been "misled into believing that Plumbfast didn't."

Doug Walsh, as assistant attorney general, noted that overall the number of consumer complaints against contractors — a category dominated by plumbers — has dropped since the office made it a focus area in the mid-1990s.

"Our role," Walsh said, "is to foster a fair and nondeceptive marketplace, not to right every wrong."

Still, Walsh said his office was "gearing up" for an enforcement conference with another plumber soon. He wouldn't name names.

Peter Lewis: 206-464-2217 or plewis@seattletimes.com