Complaint Review: Plumbline Services

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:

Plumbline presents itself as a premium contract services organization that offers courteous and professional personnel, prompt response times, eye-catching service vehicles, impressive printed marketing materials, and quality customer service at prices comparable to its competitors.   Based on my recent experience, Plumbline delivered on all but the last item: it offered me repair services of questionable quality at a price far in excess of that considered reasonable or normal in the industry.  Moreover, Plumbline appears to operate with extremely high overhead costs, which may induce their technicians to recommend more complicated and expensive repair solutions for which they can charge excessive prices.  Previous customers have posted online comments concerning Plumbline’s pattern of quoting/charging unusually high prices, and I now believe it is appropriate to label their pricing practices as “predatory.”  Accordingly, I suggest budget-conscious consumers steadfastly avoid Plumbline Services, Inc. and seek out smaller contractors who have established good reputations for quality service at fair and reasonable prices.  As always, caveat emptor – “Let the buyer beware.”

SPECIFIC DETAILS:

My LG split-ductless air conditioner suddenly stopped working, refusing to power up and begin cooling.  I called LG Support and learned the displayed error code indicated the interior evaporator unit had lost communication with the exterior condenser unit.  They informed me the cause could range from a simple disconnected wire all the way to failure of the main circuit board that controls the unit.  LG Support provided me with the phone number for Plumbline Services, Inc. as the only authorized and certified LG service provider in my area.  I immediately researched Plumbline on bbb.org/denver/business-reviews  and http://www.ripoffreport.com and was disturbed by the nature of the posted complaints.  According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s website, Plumbline Services, Inc. was formed under Colorado law on 09/22/1998, its registered agent is Jeffrey P. Belk of Englewood, Colorado, and it is in “good standing” as of the date of this posting.  Having been given no alternative by LG Support, I cautiously proceeded to call Plumbline.

After a brief period on hold, my call was answered by Sarah.  Sarah was very friendly and engaging.  She listened to my issue and promptly scheduled a technician to come to my house the very next day.  Sarah explained that the initial service call would cost $42.95 and the technician would prepare a written estimate covering any repairs needed.  She said I could either accept the estimate and Plumbline would perform the indicated repairs or I could simply decline – no pressure.

The next day a technician named Clinton came to the house just as scheduled.  He arrived in a gleaming white van prominently marked with Plumbline advertising.  Clinton was clean, courteous and meticulously careful not to track dirt into my house.  I showed him where to find the interior and exterior air conditioning units, told him what LG Support had said was the possible cause of the error code, and left him to his work.  After just a short time, Clinton asked me to come with him to look at the outside unit.  There he showed me a large mouse nest located on top of the main circuit board and a nearby sensor wire that had been chewed through by a mouse.  I thanked him for finding the problem and asked him to prepare a written estimate for me.

Clinton’s written estimate stated “I found main control board bad and temp switches with wires chewed by mouse.”  He offered two repair options: (1) replace the control board and temp switches for $971.24 or (2) replace only the control board for $872.75.  I thanked him again and told him I would have to consider my alternatives and would call Plumbline if I decided to accept one of the options presented in his proposal.

The next day as I researched my alternatives, I recalled that LG Support had said the cause could be as simple as a disconnected wire.  I wondered if Clinton had actually tested the unit after rejoined the chewed sensor wire.  It took me less than five minutes to unplug the circuit breaker and remove the access panel on the outside unit.  Finding the damaged wire had not been rejoined, it took me only a couple minutes to strip back enough plastic insulation to securely connect the wire.  I also removed any remnants of the mouse nest from the main control board and carefully scraped away what appeared to be residue from mouse urine on certain areas of the board.  I then plugged in the circuit breaker and successfully powered up the air conditioner.  After extensively checking the operations, both interior and exterior LG units appeared to function perfectly normally!  I found no evidence whatsoever to confirm Clinton’s diagnosis that the main control board was “bad.”  (Subsequent repeated operation over a period of one full week confirmed that all functions continue to work as designed.)

I promptly called Plumbline to register my concerns with the service I had received.  After a brief hold, my call was answered by Karen.  I asked to speak to someone in management about a service complaint and briefly summarized my concerns.  Karen was friendly and seemed genuinely interested in understanding what had happened.   She documented my concerns on a “Customer Complaint Form” and said Matthew, Plumbline’s Client Services Manager, would call me to discuss the situation. 

The following morning Matthew called me and had Todd, Plumbline’s HVAC Service Manager, join in the call.  Matthew began by expressing is commitment to “doing right in the world.”  Both men were pleasant and courteous – at no point were any voices raised or any words spoken in anger – and it was clear both were familiar with the issues Karen had documented on the Customer Complaint Form.  Over the course of our 31-minute conversation, we addressed the following three significant matters of concern:

1. Todd asserted that Clinton was justified in judging the main control board to be “bad” based solely on Clinton’s “visual inspection.”  Todd said he reviewed some service call photos Clinton had taken.  Todd stated that mouse urine/feces were clearly visible on the main control board and such increased the “probability” of failure at some point in the future.  I asserted that most consumers would reasonably understand that a diagnosis of “bad” meant “currently malfunctioning or failed” versus “currently functioning normally but could potentially fail sometime in the indeterminate future.”  Both Matthew and Todd conceded that Clinton may not have adequately communicated the current condition of the board but continued to maintain that long-term reliability of the unit was best accomplished by replacing the board as Clinton had recommended.
   
   
2. Todd was at a loss to explain why Clinton had made replacement of the chewed sensor wires an optional repair.  Both Matthew and Todd conceded that recommending replacement of the board as a precaution against future failure while not replacing the temp sensor which had obviously actually failed made little sense and was not an appropriate option to be recommended.
   
   
3. I shared my hesitation at initially calling Plumbline based on several online complaints I had read alleging overcharging and excessive mark ups.  I stated that I had researched the main control board and found it readily available via online retailers for about $160.  Based on allowing one hour (which is probably overly generous) for installation labor at Plumbline’s published standard hourly rate of $172.65, the main control board part was being offered to me at $700.10 (mark up of 338% or gross margin of 77%).  I inquired if this price reflected Plumbline’s normal mark up on parts.  Todd emphatically stated that Plumbline’s normal gross margin on parts was 30% (mark up of 43%) in accordance with industry norms.  I then challenged Matthew or Todd to explain to me how Clinton arrived at a main control board part selling price of $700.10 using only a 30% margin (which would calculate to a sell price of only $229.)  Both men proceeded to offer me a number of incomprehensible explanations that amounted to nothing more than financial nonsense (I am an accountant with over 30 years of professional experience and consider myself to have an above-average understanding of normal cost accounting and financial reporting concepts).  I finally told them I believed the truth of Plumbline’s pricing policy was revealed in Clinton’s optional price of $98.49 to replace the temp sensor.  This item simply plugs in and clips to the condenser tubing, so total installation time is negligible (almost certainly less than 3 minutes).  This part is also readily available via online retailers for less than $20.  Thus, the incremental price to replace the temp sensor indicates Plumbline anticipates no less than 393% mark up or 80% margin.  In my view, the refusal of both Matthew and Todd to address my specific, explicit pricing questions in a clear and straightforward manner indicates they both likely understand Plumbline’s actual pricing policy and deliberately intend to engage in predatory pricing practices. 
   
   

As the call with Matthew and Todd was concluding, I thanked them both for taking the time to listen to my concerns and suggested that if they had gained any useful customer insights during the conversation, they might want to consider implementing them to improve their business.  I then told them that my perspective on “doing right in the world” requires me to post my experience online so that other consumers can better evaluate whether to do business with Plumbline.  This comment seemed to catch Matthew by surprise and he promptly (and somewhat abruptly) ended the call.

Within two minutes Matthew called me again and said he “forgot to mention” something during our previous conversation.  Matthew asked if I wanted him to refund the amount I had paid for Clinton’s service call.  I told Matthew I had never asked for a refund and did not believe any refund was necessary.  It was my opinion that, regardless of my other concerns, Clinton had provided real value to me by correctly identifying the actual damage to the temp sensor caused by the mouse.  Accordingly, I felt Plumbline was fully entitled be paid as I originally agreed.  Matthew said while he appreciated my position, he felt the right thing for Plumbline to do was to issue a refund and that he would be mailing me a check for $42.95.  I thanked him and reiterated that I still did not think any refund was necessary.

NOTE:  More than a week has passed since my conversation with Matthew.  As of the date of this posting, I have not received a refund check.