AQUA FOX LTD

Reply from AQUA FOX LTD

Response to Unfounded Review from Client – Plumbing Services Incident Overview: I received a highly negative review from a client named Natalie, who expressed dissatisfaction with the plumbing services I provided. According to the review, she reported a leak in her toilet after I came to fix it. However, the review fails to account for the full context of the situation, and several key factors were omitted in her description. Details of Work Provided: I visited Natalie’s property to resolve two issues: 1. A toilet not flushing properly. 2. A valve replacement in a second toilet. Upon inspection, it became clear that both toilets had old plumbing. The condition of the toilets suggested that the best approach was to address the symptoms within her budget. As a result, I chose a more cost-effective solution to repair the existing plumbing, as she expressed concerns about the cost and specifically requested cheaper alternatives. The Leak Incident: After completing the requested work, Natalie reported a leak in the bathroom. After being contacted, I returned to her property within 5 minutes and identified the cause. The leak was due to old plumbing parts, not any fault in the work I carried out. The part in question was not replaced during the service as the client insisted on cheaper options. Despite this, I corrected the situation quickly and to the best of my ability, and the leak appeared to stop at that time. However, the nature of the old plumbing meant that additional leaks could occur later, which is exactly what happened when Natalie noticed water coming through the ceiling a day later. Misrepresentation in the Review: • Old plumbing caused the leak, not the work I performed. It is common knowledge that outdated pipes and seals can fail unexpectedly, and I informed the client of this during our conversation. • Natalie was offered a more permanent solution, but the decision to proceed with a more cost-effective fix was hers. • The £50 request was for additional parts and labor, which were directly related to the issues caused by the old plumbing, not my fault. Natalie did not respond to attempts to settle the matter or discuss further options, despite my efforts to clarify the situation. Conclusion and Recommendation: I firmly believe that Natalie has misrepresented the facts in her review, including attributing the issues to my work and asking for additional money when the plumbing failure was caused by the age of the system. I suggest that other tradespeople and professionals avoid this client, as she seems to have an unrealistic understanding of plumbing costs and may attempt to wrongly attribute problems to those providing services to her. In this particular case, I worked within the client’s limited budget and tried to provide the best possible solution. However, the underlying issue of old plumbing was beyond my control, and it is unfortunate that Natalie chose to blame my work for a problem caused by aging infrastructure.