- Report: #1134780
Complaint Review: Aquarius Well Drilling Unc. - Mount Shasta Select State/Province
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Aquarius Well Drilling Unc.
5707 Truck Village Drive Mount Shasta, 96067 Select State/Province, USA
Phone:
530-926-4185
Web:
aquariuswelldrilling.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Aquarius Well Drilling, Unc. Raymond and Sharon Williamson, owners Avoid at all costs Mount Shasta CA
Report Attachments
My experience: After a nice presentation, I hired Aquarius to drill my well. Year by year it lost production, then production collapsed. Inspection by a different contractor revealed that lower quality and cheaper materials were substituted from the contract, and the annular (safety) seal was set only to 3' and not the state required 20' below the surface (a misdemeanor). Also the inspection revealed that the casing was not set on the bedrock, allowing sediment to pour into the lower part of the well, ultimately choking it off.
The owner admitted in court that he had not trained the well crew, nor inspected their work. He had no records, and the reports he filed to the state and county were false. So was the billing invoice where he claimed to have used 285' of class 160 PVC, but instead, used only 1 20' section on the top (visible from the ground) and 265 feet of class PVC 125. Efforts to settle were met answered by lawyers. Found numerous past clients who had similar experiences.
Took to small claims. Owner's response in the court was that the materials change was that they just used whatever was in the yard. His lawyer came with him to small claims court to guide--but could not represent him. The owner was confident that he would be protected by the statute of limitations and showed no concern about and admitted to filing the false reports and everything. Surprise! The law extends the statute for fragrant violations. Result? I prevailed. His lawyer, nonetheless, was able to appeal to superior court where he could be represented by in court by a lawyer. His earlier admissions were now repplaced by--well, it was just typos, and I never read it or signed it, etc. Pathetic to see a businessman not take any responsibility for his own business.
In the Superior Court, I represented myself because a lawyer's cost would exceed the judgement even if I won it all. He came with a lawyer, who confidently told the judge before we started that it was a simple case and would be concluded in 2 hours. However, he found it not so easy and it took 3 days of the court's valuable time for him to run out his disinformation campaign. I did a little homework. We heard about every problem, other than the contractor's work, that you can find in a textbook and more. Earthquakes 200 miles away off the coast could be responsible, was one example. My personal favorite was "biofouling" which their expert witness observed a case in Indiana years ago. This expert wirtness, who was a friend and former employee, talked at great length about this well that he had never seen, and this well that he had not talked to anybody about who had actually worked on it.
He hadn't reviewed any written records about it, either. His knowledge, he said in court, came from the owner, who likewise had never seen the well until the county called him out to answer for its inadequate seal (a code violation). On Day 3, during cross-examination, I realized that the expert's answers did not fit the groundwater conditions beneath my property. So, I asked him "Where do I live?" Well, it turned out he thought I lived near Copco Lake, in another valley, another watershed, and actually, with a completely different groundwater system. Whatever the final outcome of his appeal, which I await, I can tell you that three days of lawyer time will cost him multiples of what he could have settled for. I have no expectations he learned any lessons here, which is why I am writing this review. His principle does not embrace taking responsibility and honesty. He embraces intimidation--through lawyers.
With so many reputable well drillers, do you want trust this one?
1 Updates & Rebuttals
337
McCloud,California,
USA
Response to Flat Hat. About Aquarius Well Drilling INC.
#2UPDATE Employee
Tue, May 05, 2015
Flat Hat's statement that what Aquarius Well Drilling had spent in attorneys fees far exceeded what Aquarius Well Drilling could have settled for. Just begs the question. "Why did Aquarius Well Drilling not just settle?"
Aquarius Well Drilling INC had no intent to decieve Flat Hat. And had Aquarius Well Drilling taken responsibility, by paying off Flat Hat, it would have been paying for questionable behavior of Flat Hat and his current Driller.
The Driller Flat Hat used to troubleshoot Flat Hat's well used inapproiate techniques in removing the pump and PVC liner from Flat Hat's well. Those techniques used, in my professional opinion, were the cause of the ensuing problems.
Mr Flat Hat was waiting for the Appeal Decision when he wrote his Ripoff report. Mr Flat Hat did not prevail. The court found in favor of Aquarius Well Drilling INC.
