Quick Dry Flood Services

To whom it may concern;
Please see attached rebuttal to ID# [redacted]

January 27, 2016Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Ave Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: Complaint # [redacted]Our technicians walked the job with Ms. [redacted], identified and explained the extent of the damaged areas in her home.  Ms. [redacted] signed the Work Authorization, Notice of Right to Cancel and Price list and then authorized the technicians to extract the water from her water heater and clean and decontaminate her water heater stand using a truckmounted vacuum and antimicrobial cleaning solution.I have attached the signed paperwork as well as pictures of our technicians performing the work done.Sincerely,
Quick-Dry Flood Services

January 13, 2016 
Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Ave Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: Complaint # [redacted]
The property lien has been placed on a temporary hold.  Once the balance due has been satisfied it will no longer be necessary to lien the property and all actions against said property will cease.  
 
Sincerely,
Quick-Dry Flood Services

January 27, 2015
Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Ave Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: Complaint #[redacted]
After reviewing the filed complaint, the majority of the concerns [redacted]...

addresses pertain to the 
charges incurred for the work performed.   Before commencement of any work in [redacted]’s home he 
was advised of what would be done and was provided two estimates detailing the costs associated with 
such repairs.  Both estimates were signed by [redacted] and no pricing concerns were voiced at that 
time.   
[redacted]’s complaints about pricing began after all work was completed and payment was due.  The 
invoices [redacted] received reflect the exact same cost as the estimates he reviewed and signed.  The 
costs associated with the repairs should be of no surprise to [redacted].  
Upon review of [redacted]’s file we find no record of any complaints of damage addressed with our 
office during the repairs or after completion.  We also did not remove the toilet as he claims.
In an effort to work with [redacted] we did extend a substantial discount and now expect payment in 
full at the newly agreed upon amount.  We understand that [redacted] may not be familiar with the 
costs associated with the type of repairs performed in his home, but he was fully aware of the costs he 
would be incurring and moved forward, signed our estimates, our contracts, and allowed us to repair his 
home.  We simply request payment for the repairs.
As the complaint [redacted] has filed with the Revdex.com pertains to pricing, we request the complaint be 
closed with a satisfactory rating and would advise [redacted] to contact our office and provide payment 
for the services rendered, allowing all parties involved to bring this matter to a close.  
Sincerely,
Quick-Dry Flood Services

December 22, 2015
Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Ave Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
RE: Complaint # [redacted]
After reviewing the filed complaint, the concerns addressed
by [redacted] had never been brought to our attention prior to
receiving this Revdex.com...

Complaint. 
On September 3, 2015 at 1:35pm we received a call from Ms.
[redacted] advising that she had a water heater leak in her garage and would
like us to come out and inspect the area. 
Our technicians arrived at her location around 5:47pm and found the
water heater platform was 100% saturated up to 3 feet high.  Ms. [redacted] was advised of the necessary
repairs and gave authorization for us to partially repair the affected area as
she was not interested in having any of our equipment placed or any demolition
done until she had an opportunity to speak with her insurance.  Paperwork did need to be signed as with any
customer who is authorizing us to perform work within the residence.  Ms. [redacted] additionally needed to sign a
Release of Liability Statement as she was not allowing us to perform all of the
necessary repairs at that time.    
Ms. [redacted] spoke with her insurance company and began to
file a claim, at which time she was advised that she had a $1,000
deductible.  It was then that Ms.
[redacted] decided to withdraw her claim without advising Quick-Dry Flood
Services she had done so. 
Quick-Dry Flood Services submitted our Invoice to Residence
Mutual, Ms. [redacted]’s insurance company, on September 23, 2015.  On September 30, 2015, we received a rebuttal
from Residence Mutual advising us that the homeowner had withdrawn her claim. 
On October 1, 2015 we contacted Ms. [redacted] regarding the
received letter at which time she stated she did not have the finances and should
not have to pay our invoice.  When asked
why she withdrew her claim, she stated she had no money for the deductible and
she did not wish to pay for the work we did. 
In an effort to assist Ms. [redacted] in this difficult time, we heavily
discounted her invoice down to $550 and offered a payment plan.  Ms. [redacted] accepted and has been making
payments to date. 
It is company policy that at any time a homeowner has a
question regarding coverage they are directed to speak with their insurance
company directly as we have no knowledge of the terms of the plan they may
have. 
It is unfortunate that Ms. [redacted] has filed a complaint
and stated concerns she has never brought to our attention in the multiple
times she has spoken with our office regarding her invoice.  We strongly feel that Ms. [redacted] is filing
this complaint in an effort to avoid paying for services rendered by claiming
unethical business practices on our part. 
We value every customer and always strive to assist in any way
possible.  Our process was no different
with Ms. [redacted] and as such, she has taken advantage of our payment
plan. 
We respectfully request the claim be closed as this matter involves
payment for services rendered and not ethics. 
  
Sincerely,
Quick-Dry Flood Services

After reviewing the filed complaint, Quick-Dry was in compliance
with all of the insurance company, [redacted], requests throughout the entirety
of Mr. [redacted]’s flood mitigation. After the job was completed an invoice was submitted
to the insurance company on February 5, 2016. On February 10, 2016,...

Quick-Dry reached
out to the adjuster for [redacted] via email to confirm they had received our invoice
and to answer any questions they may have.
Quick-Dry received a reply from [redacted] on February 25,
2016, stating that it was their intent to pay only what they had estimated when
they wrote a comparative estimate for 3 days of drying, leaving out most of the
days and work that was performed on the job. Quick-Dry replied to the email
sent from [redacted] pointing out that their estimate excluded 4 days of drying
and work that was done, specifically the drying out of the wood flooring per
the request of the insurance adjuster due to the floor continuing throughout
the house. Quick-Dry made a counter offer to [redacted] to settle the account
and the offer was dismissed outright.
On February 29, 2016, Quick-Dry sent an email to the homeowner,
Mr. [redacted], informing him that Quick-Dry and [redacted] had yet to reach a
settlement at that time. Mr. [redacted] responded that he had been instructed by the
[redacted] agent to refer all inquiries to him but he did say he would urge the
adjuster to settle the account with Quick-Dry ASAP.
On March 4, 2016, a balance due letter was mailed to Mr.
[redacted] informing him that per his contract with Quick-Dry, he was responsible for
any balance due unpaid by his insurance company.
On April 1, 2016, Quick-Dry sent an email to the owner,
Mr. [redacted], reminding him that his account was nearly 75 days past due and his insurance
carrier had left the payment of the balance due to him.
On April 5, 2016, Quick-Dry sent another letter to the homeowner,
Mr. [redacted], informing him that his balance due must be received on or before April
16, 2016 or his property will be subject to a mechanics lien and his account
sent to a collection agency. Quick-Dry also attempted to contact the adjuster
in an attempt to reach a settlement with the insurance company, [redacted], with
no response.
On April 13, 2016, Quick-Dry received a call from the
owner, Mr. [redacted], demanding we accept the payment previously sent as settlement
of invoice in full or he threatened to lodge a Revdex.com complaint “with just a push
of a button.” Mr. [redacted] also threatened to sue Quick-Dry if his credit was
affected. We attempted to explain to Mr. [redacted] that accepting $3,150.04 for a job
that was billed at $9,363.60 was impossible, especially when the estimate paid
from the insurance company was completely inaccurate.
On April 14, 2016, Quick-Dry attempted to reach a
settlement with [redacted]; we are still awaiting a response from the homeowner’s
insurance agent.
It is Quick-Dry’s contention that [redacted] grossly
undervalued the scope of work performed by Quick-Dry and intentionally ignored
Quick-Dry’s attempts to negotiate a settlement in order to force us into taking
collection action against Mr. [redacted]. We respectfully request the claim to be
closed as this matter involves payment for services rendered and not ethics. Sincerely,Quick-Dry Flood Services

Review: mold remediation company charged $5,585 for removing drywall, applying chemicals and leaving de-humidifiers and fans. this was for a small bathroom that was 3'x6' approximately. removed toilet to patio and broke wax seal and bowl cover. continued to send me incorrect and over-priced invoices. customer service was upset at me for asking questions regarding costs. miscellaneous costs involved me paying for workers gloves, tyvek suits, resp. filters and misc materials which totaled $300. charged $275 for service call, $50 for an additional tech, $300 for disposal, $750 for service, $1155 for leaving fans and dehumidifier, $225 for bio-wash, $75 for monitoring, $100 for fuel surcharge, $300 for equipment pick up and $786 for overhead and profit. they did, overall, a terrible job. they cut into wood while removing drywall. damaged carpet, damaged door while removing it. broke toilet. I was overcharged for every aspect of this simple job. after days of arguing and questioning cost, they reduced the total amount to $3,367.50Desired Settlement: based on the amount of time and money I spent to repair their mess, I should not be charged for no more than half of this cost. mold was removed to the best of my knowledge. but the resulting consequences of the below average and unprofessional work left me wondering how this company still exists.

Business

Response:

January 27, 2015

Review: I had a broken heater in my garage and caused water to leak out of it, specifically where the heater sits on . Called my plumber to take care of the heater and recommended to call this company. They came over on 09/03/15 to look a the situation and were to give me a quote which was to be presented to my insurance company. At the time, their workers insisted that they would make sure that my insurance carrier will cover the damages and made me signed a whole bunch of papers to present the claim/quote to my insurance. I asked what if the insurance will denied the claim? They insisted that they were used to deal with them and no too worry since I was not to be responsible for anything. They presented my a form to assure me that if I was to fax over to them within 3 days, I was not to be responsible for anything. My insurance warned me of their practices and that I should not used them and they were to send me a second company to give a quote. My insurance sent me another company but Quick-Dry insisted that my company was trying not to pay for any claim and this other company probably working for my insurance was to try to deny any coverage. I also, wanted to know what Quick-Dry was to do with my heather situation and I found out they were trying to claim my insurance for water damages and never to replace my water heater or nothing to do with it. I felt that the situation was not such that it will need Quick -Dry since my real problem was my water heater. I decided not to put the claim though my insurance and only worry about replacing my water heater. When I notified Quick-Dry of the situation and told them that I was not do any drying services and faxed over the form. They came back with a bill of $990 for just coming over to my house to look at the damages. I was charged for driving a truck over to my house, for hanging a license, for coming after hours (when they were late showing up at my house since they were at another site) .Desired Settlement: First of all, they were call to give me a quote and not to preform any job without the authorization form my insurance.

Second of all, they told me that I needed to sign those forms in order to present the claim to my insurance company.

I know that the people that they sent me, specifically one of them confronted my insurance representative in very unprofessional way and made ma believe that my company was "out to get me" instead of trying to help me.

They lied to me and now, they feel since I signed all those paper, they got something to go after me and threaten me to place a mechanical lien against my home if I do not pay the amount that they demand. I was forced to send them some money in order to stop the mechanical lien which they were ready to place. They lied and took advantage of the situation . They should be ashamed of themselves.

Business

Response:

December 22, 2015

Revdex.com of San Diego

4747 Viewridge Ave Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92123

RE: Complaint # [redacted]

After reviewing the filed complaint, the concerns addressed

by [redacted] had never been brought to our attention prior to

receiving this Revdex.com Complaint.

On September 3, 2015 at 1:35pm we received a call from Ms.

[redacted] advising that she had a water heater leak in her garage and would

like us to come out and inspect the area.

Our technicians arrived at her location around 5:47pm and found the

water heater platform was 100% saturated up to 3 feet high. Ms. [redacted] was advised of the necessary

repairs and gave authorization for us to partially repair the affected area as

she was not interested in having any of our equipment placed or any demolition

done until she had an opportunity to speak with her insurance. Paperwork did need to be signed as with any

customer who is authorizing us to perform work within the residence. Ms. [redacted] additionally needed to sign a

Release of Liability Statement as she was not allowing us to perform all of the

necessary repairs at that time.

Ms. [redacted] spoke with her insurance company and began to

file a claim, at which time she was advised that she had a $1,000

deductible. It was then that Ms.

[redacted] decided to withdraw her claim without advising Quick-Dry Flood

Services she had done so.

Quick-Dry Flood Services submitted our Invoice to Residence

Mutual, Ms. [redacted]’s insurance company, on September 23, 2015. On September 30, 2015, we received a rebuttal

from Residence Mutual advising us that the homeowner had withdrawn her claim.

On October 1, 2015 we contacted Ms. [redacted] regarding the

received letter at which time she stated she did not have the finances and should

not have to pay our invoice. When asked

why she withdrew her claim, she stated she had no money for the deductible and

she did not wish to pay for the work we did.

In an effort to assist Ms. [redacted] in this difficult time, we heavily

discounted her invoice down to $550 and offered a payment plan. Ms. [redacted] accepted and has been making

payments to date.

It is company policy that at any time a homeowner has a

question regarding coverage they are directed to speak with their insurance

company directly as we have no knowledge of the terms of the plan they may

have.

It is unfortunate that Ms. [redacted] has filed a complaint

and stated concerns she has never brought to our attention in the multiple

times she has spoken with our office regarding her invoice. We strongly feel that Ms. [redacted] is filing

this complaint in an effort to avoid paying for services rendered by claiming

unethical business practices on our part.

We value every customer and always strive to assist in any way

possible. Our process was no different

with Ms. [redacted] and as such, she has taken advantage of our payment

plan.

We respectfully request the claim be closed as this matter involves

payment for services rendered and not ethics.

Sincerely,

Quick-Dry Flood Services

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. It has not been resolved. I was out during the Holiday week. But I do not have any written notification that this company will stop the filing of the mechanical lien on my property. Please you ask them

Review: On 04-27-13 The bottom floor of my two story home flooded after the sink was accidentally left on. I contacted my [redacted] insurance company, who told me to get a water flood damage company ASAP to prevent any further damage, remove the water, dry the flooded area, and to take steps to prevent any mold. I contacted Quick Dry who said they would send a representative out to give an estimate, which would cost $250.00 just for coming out. The representative [redacted] unknown last, with a helper unknown name, arrived. [redacted] looked at the flood damage, took some moisture samples from the lower part of the wall and said not to worry about anything. He said it would be a 25k -30 k job. He said all of our furniture would be removed, we would probably be put in a hotel, our food expenses would be paid for, the lower 18" of drywall would have to be removed from most of the bottom floors of the house. [redacted] then had his helper bring in 8 blowers and 3 dryers and turned them on. I asked him if he was going to remove any of the water that had saturated the carpet and padding. He said it wasn't necessary. I asked him if he was going to remove any padding and base board to help with the drying, which he reluctantly did after I asked him a few times. He then told me he couldn't come the following day, because it was a Sunday and he doesn't work on Sundays. He emphasised that I shouldn't worry about anything, the Insurance will pay for everything. He said he would even take care of my deductable fee. I told [redacted] that I would have to contact the Insurance company again reference to what they would cover. I called the Insurance company the following day and advised them the Quick Dry Rep said it was a $25.000 to $30,000 job. I told the insurance company that I felt, that the Quick Dry company's estimate seemed a little high and I didn't feel comfortable with the Quick Dry Company. I asked them if they knew of a local company that does the drying and repair work, who they felt comfortable.with and they gave me the name of another flood service company. On that Sunday, I called Quick Dry and told them that I did not need their services anymore, and asked them to come and pick up their equipment. [redacted] and his helper came on 04-29-13 at about 6:30 PM and picked up their equipment. Quick Dry later sent me a bill for for 3.5 hrs of total time inside of my residence for $6588.00. They also sent the bill to my insurance company, who told me they believed some of the charges were not acceptable and they would pay for only what they believed were acceptable and accurate, since they see the average drying charges on a daily basis. The Insurance company paid Quick Dry $3586.28 for their services and they believed that was the accurate amount. I believe that Quick Dry is upset because I invoked my legal right to cancel their services within a three day period without penalties. I believe they are padding and making possible fraudulent charges as punishment for my actions.Desired Settlement: I believe that Quick Dry should drop any charges they believe I owe them and they should also remove the Lien, because if I have to remove the Lien, I will have to seek legal counsel, which I would have to then transfer those costs to Quick Dry. I believe that if they have any problems with any monies due, they should take their own Quick Dry representatives "Motto", "Don't worry, the Insurance company will pay for everything." They should deal with the insurance company with any monies due.

Business

Response:

July 25, 2013

Re: [redacted]

To whom it may concern:

We received a call from the homeowner Mr. [redacted] on

April 27th at 6:03 pm. He

stated he had a sink overflow and he had multiple areas of his house damaged

with water. We dispatched a 2 man crew

who arrived at 7:00 pm.

At that point, the crew inspected the damage and explained

to Mr. [redacted] what needed to be done.

Paperwork was signed and the crew began standard required water

mitigation to the affected areas. We

removed our equipment on April 29th and sent an itemized invoice to

Mr. [redacted] insurance company on May 7th for $6,588.00.

On June 13th we had a conversation with Mr.

[redacted]’s insurance adjuster and she said they were unwilling to pay our

invoice in full. The adjuster stated the

insurance company was only going to pay for what they deemed reasonable and any

unpaid balance will have to be taken up with the insured. We received a check from the insurance

company on June 12th for $3,586.28, which left an unpaid balance of

$3,001.72.

We contacted the insurance company and asked why we were

underpaid and received the same response as before. I spoke to Mr. [redacted] and let him know

what had transpired and he told us to leave him out of it. I explained that we cannot do that because

our contract is with him, and not his insurance company.

We have made several attempts to resolve this matter with

Mr. [redacted] but to no avail.

Ultimately, we were forced to lien the property for the balance due. Mr. [redacted] and his insurance company do

not have issues with the work done, only the price we charged for it.

Why is this a Revdex.com issue?

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

I'm not satisfied, because nothing has been accomplished. On 7-29-13 I received a letter from my Insurance Company [redacted]. They stated that on May 20th, 2013, they had [redacted] from Audit Services contact Quick Dry to discuss the billing and to come up with an agreed cost, to negotiate a reasonable cost for the services rendered. The contractor (Quick Dry) refused to negotiate, despite the billing inaccuracies and inflated charges. [redacted] stated they sent a payment on 06-06-13, based on a reasonable and correct estimate for the work performed, along with a copy of the estimate and explanation letter. Quick Dry has not provided any documentation to support that [redacted]'s estimate was not fair and accurate or that any additional charges were owed. [redacted] advised Quick Dry, they are welcome to contact the Audit Services, and [redacted] also advised they are still willing to negotiate to get an agreed cost. So far, Quick Dry, has refused to do this. Further, [redacted] has never said they were not willing to work with Quick Dry to get an agreed cost, but but Quick Dry has continually refused to work with [redacted]. At this time, Quick Dry has never sent [redacted] any proof the charges requested were actually due. Just an example as to Quick Dry's billing inaccuracies, There is a $1098.00 charge for a Miscellaneous [redacted] General Contractors Licenses #[redacted]. From the best of my understanding, companies that come out for dry-out services only can not charge this, because there is no type of repair work being done. Also the removal of the equipment was done after hours. I called them on a Sunday to make arrangements and notify them I was cancellling their services. This was done within three days, which I have the legal right to cancel without any type of penalty. I made arrangements to be at the residence all day on the following Monday, 04-29-13, so they could get their equipment. Quick Dry would not come in the morning to pick up their equipment. The choice was theirs and they said they wouldn't be there till after hours. (How conveniant) 2 workers for 1.5 to 2 hours total. and the bill for that was another $1000.00. They charged for 10 hours labor for the two workers. Also they advertise in my phone book in Menifee as a Temecula Business, with a 951 676-4349 telephone number, but they later bill as having to have traveled from San Marcos. Calif. No, I am not satisfied. This type of charging Insurance Companies without any type of "checks and balance" system has got to stop. Quick Dry has become to powerful. Somebody must control their Fraudulent billing practices.

Regards,

Business

Response:

As is sometimes the case when a homeowner uses our services and then does not want to pay their bill, the Revdex.com is the weapon they use to threaten us in an attempt to obtain unreasonable discounts or not pay any of the bill for the services we provided.

The homeowner states in his letter that the Quick-Dry rep was more interested in locking down a contract for a major job, then just trying to eliminate the water that had saturated the padding, baseboard, and plasterboard for which he initially called us for, “To dry the water”, as the homeowner put it. When in fact, it was the homeowner himself who impeded the drying process by NOT allowing the Quick-Dry technicians to perform industry recommended drying procedures while he made a game plan(See attached Refusal of Recommendations signed by the homeowner).

Quick-Dry Flood Services completed work on the property on April 29, 2013 to the satisfaction of the homeowner as seen on the Certificate of Completion signed by him on the last day of the job (See attached). The complaint to the Revdex.com was submitted on July 18, 2013 after we were forced to lien the property due to non-payment of the bill and 80 days from the last day of the job.

Quick-Dry is not indifferent to the homeowners position of being torn between the company who did the work and his insurance company who pays for the work, but one must consider the source of the accusations of billing inaccuracies and inflated charges. [redacted] Insurance negotiates what they consider a reasonable cost and have adjusters who's sole responsibility is to pay the least amount possible for services rendered. As a foot note, Quick-Dry was contacted by [redacted] Insurance and a settlement was reached for payment of the balance due.

Again, I must ask, why is the non-payment of our bill by the homeowners insurance company a Revdex.com issue?

Regards,

Review: Right after I told [redacted] that he could take his equipment, his whole attitude changed and he tried to rush me through signing paperwork that I did not want to sign.Desired Settlement: I would not like to be contacted and I don't think they should try to bill our warranty company for having the machines in our house because it was not explained to me in the beginning.

Business

Response:

To Whom It May Concern:

The work performed at the [redacted]/Campbell residence took place

between 2/28/14 and 3/5/14, during which time several of our Technicians

visited the residence to start the work, perform follow up visits to take

readings, and proceed with necessary repairs.

Upon starting the job, on 2/28/14, Ms. [redacted] was advised that it may be

necessary to remove the tile floor from the affected area but we would not know

for certain until our return on 3/3/14 to check the progress.

On 3/3/14 it was determined that the affected area was still

reading at 100% saturated and therefore the tile removal was necessary. At this time we were advised that she had

been in contact with her insurance and she did not wish to have the flooring

removed until she had heard back from her adjuster. A third follow up visit was then scheduled

for 3/5/14.

Upon arrival on 3/5/14, our Technician Daniel was informed

by Ms. [redacted], that the insurance adjuster stated the affected area was not wet

and therefore our services were no longer needed and she wanted our equipment

removed. A final inspection was

performed and the area was still fully saturated, meter reading were shown to

Ms. [redacted] to ensure she understood the area was not dry as stated by the

adjuster, (see attached meter reading images.) Ms. [redacted] chose to take the

recommendation of an untrained individual who does not specialize in this field

and continued her request for removal of our equipment. As per her request we removed our equipment, however

doing so required Ms. [redacted] sign several Release of Liability Forms. These forms are necessary whenever a

homeowner does not wish to follow our recommendations and requests we leave the

job site before all necessary repairs have been completed. These forms were also explained to Ms. [redacted] before she signed

them and prior to our departure.

Every step was explained to Ms. [redacted] and we made our best

effort to perform the required work to remove the moisture within the affected

area. Unfortunately, Ms. [redacted] took the

advice of an adjuster who does not have the proper training or equipment to

test for damage. Our records can clearly

prove our statements and while Ms. [redacted] may feel a charge should not apply

because of misinformation provided by an adjuster, our Technicians did perform

work and a charge would fully apply.

Review: Customer Serv Issues and deception. On 03/28/13, my tenant notified me in Mexico of a water leak from the 1st story. A plumber came out and fixed the leak (later to discover the leak was frm nxt door, an adjoining unit). It was recommended Quick-Dry be notified to determine the extent of water damage. I spoke to [redacted] and the manager. I informed them both of the cause of the leak, a diverted in the tub was broken. Both [redacted] and the manager stated that diverters break all the time and the ins co always pays for this type of issue. I told both of them if the ins co doesn't pay, I do not want their services and will return to the U.S. to address the issue myself. The manager sd if it goes over a few days, then the ins co will not pay due to lack of responsibility on my part. Therefore, they were authorized to provide 2 dehumidifiers (The manager sd my ins co would pay for a higher electric bill) to the unit. The tenant reported the nxt day the dehumidifiers tripped the circuit breakers and she called for Quick Dry to remove them. They refused claiming the owner (me) did not want them removed. I called and directed them to remove them. On 4/1/13, a demolition man authorized by Quick Dry, came into the unit and spoke with the tenant. He told the tenant he was removing all tile from the walls and floor of the bathroom. In addition to, whirlpool tub, toilet and sink was coming out. The tenant told him to get out and to take the dehumidifiers with him but he refused again. The tenant said if you don't take them out I will throw them in the alley; therefore, he took them. I never received a contract, bill or any notice of a dollar amount. Quick Dry never notified my ins and took it upon themselves to begin Thousands of dollar process. My ins co refused to pay. I rec'd a mechanics lien for $4,792.34 I think in Oct 2013. I was lied to, bullied and made to believe if I didn't act fast the ins would not pay. They knew I was out of the country and took every advantage of this.Desired Settlement: A collection notice was mailed to my son [redacted] who's wife became very upset. She sent them $500; however, no current status reflects this money was received by Quick Dry. A payment arrangement was made by [redacted]; however, he was told the payment plan would be voided unless his wife removed her negative comment in Face Book. I would like the $500 returned to my son and the mechanics lien voided. I would like an apology from the company for their unfair tactics,scalping and harassment via ph.

Business

Response:

February 7, 2014

Revdex.com

Re:

To Whom It May Concern:

At no time during our communication with Mrs. [redacted] has she been lied to, bullied or deceived by

Quick-Dry Flood Services or any of its staff. Upon review of our phone conversations and emails, it has

become very clear that Mrs. [redacted] was fully informed of every step and all work being performed at her

rental property. We had open lines of communication and the current complaint and accusations only

arose after her insurance company denied her claim and payment for services rendered was requested.

Our records clearly show that Mrs. [redacted] was contacted during this entire process, regardless of the

fact that she was out of the country in Mexico. On numerous occasions she spoke directly with our

Technicians, as they were on the job site, as well as our office staff.

Any delays to repairs or breakdown in communications were a direct cause of the problems between

Mrs. [redacted] and her tenants, who did not want to be inconvenienced by the repairs and the equipment

placed within the property. We were asked to remove equipment by the tenants and directed to leave

the equipment by Mrs. [redacted]. Both the homeowner and tenant were advised that we could not

interfere and they would need to reach a solution.

When questions about insurance coverage were addressed, Mrs. [redacted] was advised that we could not

speak directly to her policy and the type of coverage she had. She was informed that we had seen

similar damage covered but we could not offer any guarantee and she would need to speak with her

insurance directly. On 4/4/13 we were advised that the insurance adjuster had declined Mrs. [redacted]’s

claim based on the information obtained from the plumber’s report, stating that the cause of the

damage had been an ongoing issue. Denial of her claim had nothing to do with the services provided by

Quick-Dry Flood Services and certainly did not release Mrs. [redacted] of the responsibility to pay for the

work performed. In an effort to work with Mrs. [redacted] we heavily discounted her invoice from $4792.34

down to $2930.8, as well as offered to extend a payment plan, instead of requesting payment in full.

She agreed her first payment would be in November of 2013; however her one and only payment of

$500 was received on December 9, 2013. No additions payments have been made since.

We understand that this has been a difficult situation, however stressful; it certainly does not warrant

false statements and accusations being made about our company and the services we provided. It is

unfortunate that we do not have recordings of all the phone conversations with Mrs. [redacted]. If those

were available this matter would have been resolved some time ago. It appears that Mrs. [redacted] has

refocused her efforts on filing complaints and posting online statements instead of focusing on the

payment plan extended to her. It is our conclusion that Mrs. [redacted] is attempting to avoid payment and

unfortunately we cannot allow that to happen.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

My response: Quick Dry reported no time was I lied to, bullied or deceived by them. The manager and Nicole both made it very clear that the diverted in the tub was "always" covered by ins companies and they were familiar with this because it was common for this to happen. I asked them several times regarding insurance, just to make sure I did not end up with a large bill if the ins company would or would not pay. I was assured several times not to worry. The manager also made it clear that my return to the states in a few days could result in the ins denial to pay for damages if I did not do everything to protect the property from additional damage. The manager insisted the two dehumidifiers would prove I took immediate action. (This was lying and bullying to create a fear in me). The manager never once said "similar damage" in regards to the diverter that was broken in the tub where he continues to write, "that they could not offer any guarantee." That is a direct lie from him. The manager continues to report any delays to repairs or breakdown were a direct cause of the problems between me and my tenants. What is he saying and where does he get this stuff? My tenants were very unhappy with the rude technicians who came into the living space. The tenants called me complaining about the technicians and the dehumidifiers which did not work. I instructed Quick Dry to take them out but the manager claimed the walls would grow black mold, further damage and possible insurance problems due to the lack of action on my part. If the leak was coming through the unit next door (discovered by my husband after our return to the U.S.) then why would Quick Dry want to tear our the bathroom from ceiling to floor where I was told the leak was coming from? They lied about the bathroom walls being soaked. I put thousands of dollars into that bathroom five years ago, everything was new and they wanted to tear it out before I could get to my insurance company. Do you realize what kind of bill that would have been, in addition being a large financial gain for them. Thank goodness my tenants kicked the technicians out. The technicians were going to do the same thing in the kitchen with no guarantee on my granite counter tops. Not only did Quick Dry lie and bully but they tried to be sneaky before I could contact my insurance company for their own financial gain. I never once got any contract, dollar amount or information from Quick Dry regarding their services until I received a lien notice on the property. I never made a payment plan as they claim with them. It was my daughter-in-law who was frightened into paying because [redacted], my son is on the deed to the property. [redacted] was told the lien was on him and he had to pay them. The manager needs to get his story straight. I told my son not to send anymore money. Two dehumidifiers for a couple days which did not work did not come close to $500 let along $4792.34. Quick Dry indicates further that false statements and accusations have been made by me and I need to refocus my efforts on a payment plan. My husband and I are both retired and we do not spend our money foolishly. I asked the questions from Quick Dry and I thought I was getting truthful answers and not being taken advantage of but I was wrong to believe them.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern;

Please see attached rebuttal to ID# [redacted]

I hired Quick-Dry for emergency flood services. The technician meticulously photographed what he touched and thoroughly tested for saturation. After finding possible evidence of lead and asbestos he halted demolition and placed machines to dry my space while I awaited test results.

The technician also applied surface treatment to flooring slated for demolition, which was expensive and not discussed before application. I am not a flood expert. I do not know the guidelines, when’s or where’s for surface treatments. However, it was off-putting to have this done without a prior discussion and I cancelled their services shortly after.

There was some confusion in settling my account with them as I did not understand their collection process. When an insurance company is involved the invoice is sent to them and to homeowners upon request. I wish that the technician had informed me of this when I gave him my claim information.

In the end I received my invoice and was informed that the owners opted to consider my file settled for the amount received. The invoice layout is very different than their price sheet. I am grateful that this matter is settled because it would take considerable effort to reconcile the two.

Quick-Dry is well rated with the Revdex.com and has a valid bonded license with the CSLB. They sponsor very worthy causes and are well certified and affiliated. They’ve operated in my home town for 47 years. These factors contributed to my hiring of them, but after the questionable surface treatment and a warning by a dear friend to tread carefully, I went back to the computer and dug a little deeper. I decided to use a different flood restoration company that has a fewer liens recorded with the county Assessor, better reviews on Yelp and fewer complaints with the Revdex.com. I was sadden to take my business to a company outside of Escondido, but I was wary of what could have transpired.

I am writing this review in hope that this company will refined their practices and procedures, particularly in communicating with homeowners. Collecting on a contract is done with an invoice, when settlement becomes the homeowners responsibly in lieu of an insurance company, phone conversations are not adequate. I hope that Quick-Dry will be able to conduct future business with less liens filed and fewer differences with insurance companies. This company provides a valuable service and much needed jobs to our community. I sincerely wish to see them to operate with better customer satisfaction.