River Trails Homeowners Association

At first glance,I thought this was a slam dunk. "Plumber hoses consumer". I was ready to write off this plumber based on this one post and never use them.Then the accused responded and I started to notice some discrepencies in the follow up replies.

Descrepency #1.....Did the job pass inspection?

Accusor:"The work they provided did not pass inspection"

Accused:"The City of Fort Worth approved the gas line we installed on 2/26/2010.

So......mabey a little half truth.It didn't pass inspection /then it did.

Descrepency #2.....Was the work completed ? 

Accusor: "The work they provided did not pass inspection and they will not return to complete the work. 

Accused: "We completed everything we agreed to in our contract with Ms             and did not charge her credit card until the work was completed.

Again Accusor:"work for the original failed inspection was not even completed as stated"

Again Accusor" They did not complete the work that was contracted for.

 So.. Did the plumber complete the work contracted ?I guess we need to see what the contract states.

Descrepency #3......When did the consumer get charged for the services? 

Accused: " did not charge her credit card until the work was completed"

Accusor:  "they charged my credit card before the inspection was even started"

Again both can't be right,but...Work is not completed until the job passes inspection. 

Who is telling the truth? I bet the consumer is correct here.

Then there was this ....Contractor:"We were hired to install a gas line from the meter to the back yard for a fire pit and BBG grill.

Consumer"When I hired a new plumber, the gas line was not even hooked up to the house.

Ok,Whats this all about ?Should the gas line have been run simply from the house to the pit,or did there need to be a whole new line run from the meter?Which cost more,or less.

Also, why did the City request a pressure test on the house if the line ran from the pit to the meter ?something smell like rotten eggs... I bet it's not the gas.....

Personally,I think it passed inspection on the work of the original contractor,but I'm unsure if all the work was completed as contracted and think the consumer was billed before the work was completed.Second I wonder  if the 2nd contractor exposed some flaws in the design of the 1st contractor.The city request for a pressure test still has me puzzled.I will probably stay away from contractor #1.

Hi, owner here...

Response to issues above...

#1... work never passed inspection.  Still open permit with the city bc I had to hire new plumber to finish job and they had to get new permit.  What Steve Hatcher is talking about is there is a partial green tag for the actual line underground bc after six weeks of trying to get them to complete job, I wanted the trench around my house filled back in.  It would rain and the trench would refill with water.  On nice days, I would call the office and they would promise that the plumber was either coming that day or the next.  The following afternoon, I would call the plumber's cell and he would say he had no idea he was supposed to come by.  Then it would rain/snow again.  Also, work was started in mid-january and he said work completed in mid-feb, it was supposed to be a one day job.

#2...  They did not complete the work contracted for due to the line was never functional or even hooked up to the meter.  They charged my credit card before the inspection was even completed (the day they dug the trench). 

#3... Your exactly right that work isn't completed until inspection complete.  See #2

#4... not sure of what's asked.  Your right, City of Fort Worth I think was overly cautious and my husband was willing to split the cost with Steve Hatcher, but Steve started yelling and said no he would complete the work the the inspector wanted.  Just FYI, he never did any of the addl work.  New plumber did (in less than an hour addl work).  The contract was for a gas line to be run from the meter to the backyard for a grill and firepit. 

We ended up not doing a firepit due to annoying city inspector.  I think what started the whole mess was the plumber couldn't go through our attic like he initially quoted ($2000) and we agreed for $500 more they would install line on the outside of the house.  I don't think Steve Hatcher wanted to charge that price and when inspection failed tried to get an extra $500 for what he would have originally done the work???  Just a guess.

I left a lot out of my initial statement and response to Steve Hatcher.  I just really want to be done with this whole situation, but I also want to give a head's up to my neighbors.  My yard was ruined and one fence panel destroyed.  I have pictures of the work or lack there of.  Through this nightmare, we had to pay addl plumber and landscaper to fix yard.  Luckily, my neighbors have been somewhat understanding since the plumbers ruined their yard also.  Its all over with now.  I am sure some people have good luck with this plumbing company, but I definitely did not and would never recommend using them.  You can make your own judgements.  By the way, I used Belue Plumbing in Hurst and they were great!!!  Hope this clarifies some things.

There you have it !!!!!!

Sounds like you got HOSED by this plumber....Things aren't always as simple as they seem,I question those emails that make outrageous claims, and I  question blogs sometimes when they are so different in facts.Thanks for the addition detail, you sound believable.

Is Hatcher licensed? Is the company he works for (assuming he's not the owner) also licensed?  If not, that's a huge red flag.  I expect the new company in Hurst was licensed.  Licensing, if I remember correctly, demonstrates they know what they're doing, they can perform work to, and familiar with, city & county (locality) code.  This is sounding like they didn't perform work to code, thus the city rejected it.  Considering the quality of work initially performed, it's probably a good thing they didn't do anything in your attic, there might have been an explosion.