Disservice Notified, Not Rectified
Unlike usual water cooler discussions—where sports, weather, celebrities, and trivia tend to take over—a recent story circulating around an Indianapolis office is far from exciting or whimsical. In fact, it’s down right infuriating.
Michael recently decided to sell his home. After consulting a realtor, he had a routine inspection to make sure everything in the house was in working condition. Unfortunately, it was discovered that the home’s septic tank system was not draining properly. It was severely backed up and posed serious health code violations.
Concerned, Michael had his entire system replaced. It was an expensive fix, but nonetheless necessary. As the repairs concluded, he sought approval from the Health Department. After a detailed inspection, the health inspector deemed the property in great condition. So, Michael moved forward with the sale of his home.
Almost immediately he received an offer. It was accepted and contracts were in the making. All that was left to do was perform one last home inspection for the buyers’ benefit. Confident in the recent work done on his septic tank, Michael had no cause for concern. That is until he received word that the home inspector found a serious issue: the septic system was not installed properly. In less than two minutes, the inspector was able to discover that the tank was draining directly into the creek behind the home. Upon hearing the news, Michael was no doubt upset. He took action.
Immediately he contacted the Health Department with one question: how could the work have passed inspection? No doubt, his question was quite valid; his disturbance understandable. Yet, the report was given little consideration since the only response given was a follow-up letter one week later:
Dear Michael,
It has been brought to our attention that your house contains health code violations that pose a threat to the health and well-being of both you and your neighbors. We urge you to rectify this problem within thirty days of this letter. Otherwise, you will be fined two-thousand dollars.
Sincerely,
The Health Department
There’s no doubt that it can be frustrating to find ourselves in a dilemma such as Michael’s—where solving a problem and conjuring a fair and proper remedy is ultimately out of our hands. But in a sense, it’s all the more reason to be proactive in our efforts for quality.
Tell us: What should the health department do to avoid this situation in the future?
Stay tuned for Slaughter Development’s reflections on Michael’s situation.
❖ ❖ ❖
Like this post? Here are some related entries from The Methodology Blog you might enjoy:
Read on »
February 24th, 2011 at 7:49 am
In response to the question posed there are a few things that immediately come to mind when thinking about a possible solution for the future.
As a recent homeowner, I am all to familiar with the process of inspections and the uncertainty of whether a thorough inspection has been done. Looking back, I wish there was a quick check sheet that lists possible/common mishaps that may cost you in the end.
In relation to Michael’s situation, I think actionable steps the Health Department could have taken is providing additional, outside information regarding septic tank installations, how you can spot early leaking etc. I think the more information you can give to the public, the better. Helps establish credibility.
Secondly, I think a follow-up to the initial Health Department inspection should happen. No one is perfect and I think when it comes to something as serious as a septic problem, a chance to “re-check” someone’s work should be imperative.
Finally, we are all busy in the work place, but the severe lack of care behind the Heath Departments customer service is appalling. Setting up a concise protocol that is a little more involved then a letter, I think, would be beneficial for both the Health Department and those that have to interact with them.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:25 am
I see a couple of issues here.
First of all, while a lot of people will be quick to blame the Health Department for this whole situation, don’t forget about the company that did not install the septic system properly. I would hope that any company working with septic systems would be familiar enough with the Health Department regulations to properly do the install. If not, then ultimately they are responsible for fixing things. The homeowner contracted with them for satisfactory work and the work performed was clearly not satisfactory.
The Health Department, of course, should have caught this during their original inspection. But they didn’t. Yes, this has put the homeowner in a tough position, but again it’s now up to the company that installed the new septic system to get it fixed within 30 days or pay the fine for the homeowner. The Health Department does need to address the fact that this was overlooked by reviewing things with the representative that conducted the original inspection.
Clearly, the letter they sent the homeowner did not acknowledge their mistake. This is a customer service issue and makes it look as though they are taking no blame for their oversight. I would think they would want to issue some type of apology and assure the homeowner they are looking into why the issue was missed in the first place. I also agree with Erin in that some additional educational info needs to be provided to both the homeowner and the company doing the work.
In my opinion, that is enough. Again it falls back on the company that installed the septic system to get it right.
February 24th, 2011 at 8:27 am
I think that Erin makes some great points. There should be a checklist that the inspector has to complete, which is also provided to the homeowner for reference. That way, if the homeowner receives a letter like this in the future, they can prove that 1) the Health Department approved it in the future and 2) that inspections need to be more thorough.
Another great suggestion that Erin made was a follow up inspection. No one is perfect, and I definitely believe that this would be a good idea. However, there is the matter of productivity. This will take twice as much time, in theory, so there has to be a way to make this productive but not inefficient. How to do this? I’m not exactly sure. My best suggestion is testing different methods to see which one provides the best results in the least amount of time.
Finally, I think a great way for homeowners to be able to check some of these things themselves is if the Health Department had a resource center microsite. They should place valuable information for homeowners on this site, and the resources should be easy to find and promoted by the Health Department. This will also solve part of the customer service issues.
Overall, I believe it is important for the Health Department to be more organized. There needs to be more productive and efficient procedures in place so that they do not run into this again. Furthermore, Michael should not be punished for the Health Department’s lack of thoroughness. Where are the records of when the inspector’s came out in the first place?
February 24th, 2011 at 9:48 am
I wish I could say that this story surprised me. It is an unfortunate reality in many cities with budget cuts and a lack of qualified personnel that a standard practice exists that when doing inspections (not just health, but electrical, building code….) If the work was done by a “reputable” established company, and the proper permits were obtained, the only “inspection” is to see that the permit was displayed. I have several contractors in various cities who shared this concern with me, and I never thought about how devastating this could be, not only to the individual, but to the environment!
The Health Dept. in this case should fine the company who did the work not the homeowner, investigate how this serious error was over looked, and correct the problem.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Obviously there are communication and quality issues involved. (full disclosure: I have a family member who works for an Indiana health department)
I don’t know the caseload or scope of work assignments for this specific department of this specific health department.
The health dept. should go after the company who did the shoddy work, as should the homeowner. If I were the homeowner, I would show this blog to the health dept. and the company and ask them to rectify the situation before it goes further on social media, cause it will happen. And I would give copies of this blog not only to the health department but its supervisory organization - whether a county council or a mayor, in addition to making sure the head of the county department sees this. Squeaky wheels are most likely to get grease.
The health dept. can set checklists of items to check before passing an inspection. They can also establish policies for employees to follow with consequences if they do not.
They would be wise to do so because situations like this leave them open for damage suits and claims. Imagine if the uncaught error had caused environmental damage next to a business or a school and that business or school then sued. Prevention now saves taxpayer money later - and also prevents major incidents like the one here that was not caught.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:34 am
The question you posed concerned actions the HEALTH DEPARTMENT department should take, not what Michael should do at this point (or who should sue whom. (Apparently, some of your respondents did not direct their answers in accordance with the query.)
First, training. Training is the answer, even after-the-fact.
For inspectors: A special session should immediately be arranged to go over in detail every step of the inspection process to ensure that reports are complete and that there is a simple procedure to follow whenever issues are uncovered during an inspection.
For customer service people: The special training should focus on discerning when an individual phone followup needs to happen before any letter is sent.
PR containment:
SInce the word is already “out” on social media about the incident, shouldering the blame ithrough blogs, press releases, and social media can be key.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Sadly, the health departments reaction was correct. However, they assumed no responsibility for missing the issue. As with a lot of companies and gov’t agencies, they neither assume or take responsibility for missing such a huge over-sight. They at some point, should assist in action against the installer.
I will be curious to hear the outcome of this matter, but I am sure the homeowner will be stuck with either the bill for the repair or the fine.
as to what the health dept, should do? make better inspections, but adding another layer to the process just slows it down.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Great comments all! Tune in next week when we answer this with our own blog post!
Or if you have more thoughts—please chime in!
February 24th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“he sought approval from the Health Department. After a detailed inspection, the health inspector deemed the property in great condition.”
The businesses/agencies involved all need to provide great customer service. As a service provider myself, if a customer called me and said something was broken, I would not then send them a bill and say “ok, since that’s broken and I said it was fine, well then, you owe us another $1000.” That’s insane.
If the system had been in perfect working order at the time of the Health Dept inspection and then changed somehow, either through defect or deterioration, that’s a different story. But it sounds like that’s not the case. Of course, there are always more details than what’s circulating round the office. I would make sure I had all the facts before assigning all the blame.
With the facts I have access to today, I would say a swift and sincere apology from the installers and the health department seem in order, along with complimentary repairs from the installers, and of course follow up training for all.
February 24th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Rhoda provided some goods ideas on what the Health Department should do in regards to training and ensuring better quality control over inspections to prevent this kind of situation from happening to other home owners. However, what should the Department do if and when the next customer brings a different kind of situation to its attention?
Unlike a for-profit company, the Health Department does not have customers it can “lose.” Unlike an elected office, it does not have to worry about upsetting constituents. The Department has a very important job to do - ensure the health of the county - and a lot of processes to do that job effectively, with minimal staff.
Unfortunately, processes do not leave a lot of room for individualized attention. In fact, it breeds a culture that focuses on the problem rather than the person affected. I agree with Dave, the Department did what it has been trained to do. It investigated the situation and determined there was indeed a problem. Because the problem was on the homeowners’ property, the Department had no choice but to place the responsibility for the fix on the property owner. Imagine if the Department took responsibility, hired a contractor to fix the problem and caused another problem. Instant litigation against the Department. Nonprofits and quasi-governmental agencies do not have the resources to take on that kind of liability.
So what should a quasi-governmental agency do when its hands are tied by legal concerns and its processes provide little room for personalized response?
The Department can become a resource for the homeowner. At the very least it should provide information on what would qualify as rectifying the situation. In addition, it could provide fact sheets of approved vendors and/or negotiated coupons for discounted service.
The Department could also be more transparent about its internal performance evaluation and give the homeowner an opportunity to file a formal complaint that will be considered when the contract for service is reviewed. Heck, let’s make it even easier. Any home inspection should be followed up with a form survey allowing the home owner to review service. This creates a system of accountability.
Michael counted on the original inspector to do his job correctly. The Department hired that inspector on contract. Even though there is little recourse against the Health Department, it has a responsibility to be an advocate for residents, not just for process and health code. Residents can be a partner in this process.