Your general contractor was verified to be licensed and insured? Verified? This project was permitted by your municipality and inspected during the rough plumbing phase? You saw the permit in the window, and knew the scheduled time for the inspection? Because it doesn't sound like any of that happened.

A reputable General Contractor is responsible for the whole job.

Yes! Our contractor was licensed and insured.

Yes, inspectors passed the rough plumbing earlier on in the project.

That’s why this is so insane!

You need a written explanation of why this shouldn't be considered a warranty repair.

If this was something that wasn't your plumber's fault in materials or workmanship (I can't figure out what that could be) then perhaps.

It concerns me a little bit that the contractor offered you a solution (waste pump) that you rejected. Nonetheless, if he didn't intend to stand behind his alternate solution, that should have been in writing.

It sounds like the contractor did his due diligence before using the capped waste line, but I can't imagine him not testing the final product before the final bill. If he tested it and knew it wasn't working, and billed you anyway, I'd consider that working in bad faith.

Here's what I would do: I'd call in a uninterested plumber to pull the toilet and run a camera down the pipe and find out why it's not working. They can capture photos of what they find. This isn't a particularly expensive service, most drain cleaning companies can do it.

The only other issue that comes to mind is waste venting - but that should have come up in the inspection.

From what we the plumbers did everything to code and the new piping works up until it connects to en existing pipe that was capped. We did not want the pump suggested bc parts break and pumps require maintenance. Our plumber agreed that doing it the alternate way would work. The plumbing was tested with some water but never ran the length of a shower or tested solids in the toilet.

We had a different plumber come and run a camera into the capped pipe we connected to and saw the 3” existing pipe reduces to 1/2” opening.

These additional costs would have occurred at the beginning of the project had you had the pipe scoped, or you would have done the macerating pump.

I believe that the contractor did his due diligence on the existing plumbing. I could foresee multiple possible issues with a relatively simple "drain test" - but I deal with much older homes mostly. Scoping the pipe beforehand would have been a good idea, but goes beyond due diligence on newer plumbing. I have a hard time imagining why a 3" sewer would ever legitimately reduce down to 1/2". I can imagine where an old 3" line could have been abandoned or connected to something other than the sanitary sewer - and that may not have been revealed on a drain test but would be if it had been scoped.

I agree with @HALLETT & Co., these are expenses that you would have incurred at the beginning of the project- or you would have installed the macerating pump. If there's some shared responsibility, a GC might be able to eat a percentage of the costs by calling in some favors from contractors, but I don't know that's really the case here.

There is a lesson here though, contractors don't like "unknowns" - and for good reason. An unforeseeable issue can very quickly turn a profitable job with a satisfied client into a huge problem. They suggested a macerating pump and a known-good sewer line for a reason, they knew it would work. I don't blame you for wanting to avoid it for the reasons you mentioned, but now here we are.

Thank you all for the input. Hugely helpful.

I’ve requested an explanation on warranty repairs as suggested, so we’ll see.

I think what’s most difficult to swallow is we agreed on a bid and budgeted accordingly. Along the way we also added some things (new hardwood floors, new stairs, crown molding). Had they discovered this issue in a timely matter, we could have planned to lose thousands of dollars where it was actually needed

But as you’ve explained it all costs are for things that were needed. It doesn’t sound like anyone tried to take advantage of you. It sucks and you are probably tapped out emotionally and financially. But hopefully six months from now you will be able to look back at this as a small blip in an otherwise smooth project.

I get why you are frustrated. You would have made different decisions if you had known much earlier. I get it. Now you are tapped out and frustrated.

At the same time, you can't hold the plumber liable for doing work that was entirely out of the scope of the project. They did make a reasonable effort to find out if the drain was viable prior to proceeding.

Sorry for your frustration.

"we agreed on a bid and budgeted accordingly"

-- And it is always wise to include in your budget an extra 10-15 % cushion in case things like this come up, because they do. You never know what is going to be found behind walls, as a pipe narrows, underneath a floor, on and on.

Holding on to that 10% cushion and not using it to expand the scope of design is part of being extremely disciplined about construction budgets. If 6-months after the job is complete, nothing has broken, nothing needs to be dealt with as in your case, then you have the 10% to put into savings and marvel that you didn't go over budget.

It is a hard lesson learned. Very few people do this, but you can see why it is a good practice.

@Joseph Corlett, LLC.

It should indeed work, but did you read the entire thread?

I can't imagine a contractor being on the hook for unlimited liability for work that is completely out-of-scope of the contract - particularly when the owner rejected the preferred solution.

If you are installing a large granite countertop in a kitchen, and your visual inspection of the floor joists indicates the floor was done to code and would support the weight, and then the floor sags because of termite damage in an area you couldn't see, are you liable for repairing the termite damage? I don't think you are.

You can argue that the contractor should have run a camera down the drain and not relied only on a "drain test", but hindsight is 20/20. And as others have said, the owner would have incurred these costs either way, which is likely the way a judge would see it also.

Jake: Customers get what, where, when, and why, but the contractor keeps who and how. This was clearly how something would be done. If your customer makes a bad suggestion, you tell them "No.". When you do as a customer suggests, you've given approval to that suggestion. If it doesn't work, that's on you as the professional.

If it doesn't work, that's on you as the professional.

Really? What about surprises? My contractor gave me a quote for work. When they removed three layers of flooring they discovered that the back of my house had no foundation and was sitting on a 6 ft plus pit of coal ashes. A new foundation was in order for them to be able to complete the job. No way could they have known that and no way should they have had to pay for this.

Was there any way for this plumber to have known that the pipe was only 1/2"? How would they have known and would coming across this information be a reasonable part of the scope of work they were expected to conduct?

Contractors don't have X ray vision. They can anticipate common "syndromes", like the shut off valve under the sink is going to leak, because it never gets used, and will need replacing. But no one can anticipate invisible stupid hackery that shouldn't have occurred.

Um, was there no building permit pulled for this work? If so, then a plumbing inspection would have flagged the issue before the job was considered complete. Note to homeowners: NEVER do major plumbing or electrical work without a building permit. This is exactly why it’s a risk. In your shoes, I’d hire a different contractor altogether; this one clearly does not know what he’s doing.

Sabrina the city inspectors where I am never even turn on a faucet unless they think it’s interesting. Flush a toilet. Never. Take a shower? Absolutely not. Years ago we had a contractor leave a clean out off in a crawlspace which wasn’t obvious for a week until we got the washing machine delivered. That was fun to clean up.

invisible stupid hackery that shouldn't have occurred

There needs to be a blog/insta called "Invisible Stupid Hackery that Shouldn't Have Occurred", ala Zillow Gone Wild to show the electric, pllumbing, and carpentry stupidity that others have created in homes.

@Sabrina Alfin Interiors

So, you didn't read the second post - instead you knee-jerk slandered the contractor?

"Yes! Our contractor was licensed and insured.

Yes, inspectors passed the rough plumbing earlier on in the project.

That’s why this is so insane!"

They even tested the drain by running water through it. What they didn't do (since it was just a capped cleanout at that point) was to run a lot of water through it with "solids" so as to simulate a toilet. In my view, they did due diligence for recent construction.

They could have also run a camera down the drain - which would probably have reveled the problem, but they didn't.

City inspectors doing a rough-in inspection on a remodel would inspect the recent work that was done. They would not do a "flush test" on rough-in (they couldn't if they wanted to) and they wouldn't inspect previous work unless perhaps something unsafe was obvious in the old work.

The reduced pipe was buried and not visible without running a camera inside the drain line.

Hey @jakethewonderdog, we all have our personal and professional experiences to bring to the table here. And no, I don’t always read every comment on a discussion. Something is not right here, and I would be very cautious paying this guy more money for a job he didn’t do right the first time.

@Sabrina Alfin Interiors

Indeed, something isn't right, and if you had gone through the comments you would understand what it is. You do not help the OP if you are making comments without reading and understanding the issue.

There is no indication that the contractor has been anything other than professional. The OP has not been dissatisfied with the work that the contractor did that was in the scope of work -- there has been no mention of issues anyway. The contractor can not be responsible for downstream problems with the plumbing that were out of scope and he could not reasonably foresee.

The contractor made a reasonable attempt to validate the drain was functional at the very start of the project. The problem only came to light when the drain was used as intended - by showering and attempting to pass solids through the toilet. That's not a test that could have been easily replicated on the front-end of the project.

There's no legitimate reason that a 3" drain line would narrow down to 1/2". The problem was diagnosed by a disinterested third party who used a camera in the drain line when the toilet didn't function as intended.

The OP is understandably upset. They are tapped-out and they are looking at a significant un-budgeted expense for digging up a sewer line to fix the issue. This is an expense the OP would have encountered even if it had been spotted at the beginning of the project - but it would have been budgeted and perhaps different decisions would have been made. Sometimes these things happen - we discover termite damage, foundation damage, rot, poor workmanship, etc. once we get into a project that we didn't detect at the start.

The OP is under no obligation to "pay this guy more money", as you said. He has already been fully paid for the work that was done. The OP may use the original contractor - or a different one altogether - to remedy the down-stream problem.

From a contractor's perspective, discovering a problem once you get into the project (or finished with the project) is bad business and should be avoided whenever possible. A presumably successful, profitable job - and happy client - has become something else. Even if the client understands, they aren't going to be happy about it.

What are we arguing about? We both are saying the issue needs a remedy. And as much as the situation sucks, the OP still needs it fixed. The question is, by whom and for how much money? In her shoes, I would not trust the original contractor to do the job correctly. YMMV.

The original contractor did everything that ANY good contractor would have done. You can not go back now and say you don't trust him because of a concealed issue. That's just cutting off your nose is a very spiteful and completely unreasonable manner. This issue isn't due to the contractor. It's due to a weird quirkiness of whomever built the house originally. Using the same contractor is actually the smartest way to get this completed well, and checked off. It's also probably the cheapest, as he wants the OP to be happy, and the job to be right. He just isn't going to do it for free, since it wasn't his fault.