Virginia Restoration Services Corp.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
While I appreciate the detailed response from VRS, it comes from someone who was never involved in any of the interactions between me and the companyThe respondent is relying on the anecdotal information from his employees who have mischaracterized and flatly lied about the circumstances and the exchanges between usThe facts are very clear and the most apparent fact is that this is a company that refuses to allow any customer to be right, but instead is willing to trash a customer to maintain a posture with an insurance company My company is a service company and I have 40+ years dealing with clients and have never in my professional life encountered any organization less respectful of a customer as I have in my experience with VRSBy refusing to accept any responsibility for their lack of performance and culpability in the difficulty involved in settling the claim, they have simply confirmed my original complaintI again point out that when we were able to collect payment from the cable company, I invited VRS to complete their workThey refused and were paid immediately for work completed and billedI fulfilled my side of this bargainThey did not
Regards,
*** ***

Review: Contacted VRS on 8/7/2014 regarding a fire in our home to which they responded efficiently at first and represented that they would handle all issues with the insurance company and make necessary provisions for documenting the incident in the event it ever went to court. A dispute arose between the contractor and the insurance company regarding the estimate and each refused to resolve the issue so that we could get paid for the damage as promised by the company that caused the damage. VRS demanded deposits up front to complete the job and when I discussed the possibility of litigation against the cable company to obtain payment as promised, VRS promptly refused to complete the job. We requested an invoice for work done and paid them immediately and they proceeded to bad mouth us to our friends and business associates. We did receive 100% restitution from the cable company and I had to engage another contractor to complete the job VRS had bid. It is now clear that none of this would have happened if VRS had done a more complete estimate of the damage and included all of the repairs needed which were ultimately paid for.

VRS represented that they would handle all of the dealings with the insurance company. They did not. We spent many hours on the phone with the insurance adjuster trying to resolve the matters that VRS had caused by their faulty estimating. VRS represented that they were documenting the incident so that we would have the necessary documentation for any legal proceedings, but when we mentioned we might have to involve our attorney to get paid by the cable company, the refused to complete the job. All of which points to a gross misrepresentation of the services they say they will provide compared to what they actually do.Desired Settlement: That VRS never darken our door step again.

Business

Response:

[redacted]

Business Response text appears below:

[redacted] Re: Case# [redacted] – Virginia Restoration Services Corp. Dear Revdex.com, Thank you for the opportunity allowing us to respond to the complaint filed against our company. We respectfully disagree with the reasoning for the complaint filed with regard to our service and advice provided to the customer. It is our opinion that the customer does have reason to be upset about how the claim was handled by their cable company’s insurance representative, however we feel we went above and beyond in an effort to walk the customer though the process to reach a fair settlement. We as a company are confident that we did nothing to warrant this complaint and this letter will give a different perspective of the events that led VRS to ultimately turn down the reconstruction portion of the customer’s claim. It is our understanding that the complaint involves “selling practices” as listed in the Revdex.com document. Please keep in mind, our response is based on our interpretation of the complaint by way of the statement, desired settlement and customer involvement. The bulleted excerpts are extracted from the “Customer’s Statement of Problem” from the Complaint Information form provided by the Revdex.com and our response to each bullet follows. Please also find the attached job notes extracted from our client records system. The notes cannot be altered or changed by a member of the VRS team once written. These notes may also help to determine if we misrepresented our services or not. • “…responded efficiently at first and represented that they would handle all issues with the insurance company and make necessary provision for documenting the incident in the event it ever went to court.” It is company policy that our jobs are documented appropriately in the event we have to provide additional information to customers, insurance carriers, or attorneys. In turn all of our documentation of this job would have been more than enough for the customer to be awarded a fair settlement in court. In fact the documentation was done so appropriately, that this claim was settled out of court and the customer was awarded the full amount of restitution deserved in order to have his home restored. The documentation VRS provided played a pivotal role in this customer being indemnified completely as describe in the customer’s statement, “We did receive 100% restitution from the cable company…” . [redacted] dated 11/04/14, where the customer wrote, “[redacted] is delivering a check for the full amount this week.” From this and other documentation submitted for this complaint, the Revdex.com can clearly see that the full amount of the check was based on the estimate VRS provided with documentation, photos and notes. • “A dispute arose between the contractor and the insurance company regarding the estimate and each refused to resolve the issue so that we could get paid for the damage as promised by the company that caused the damage.” To our knowledge the only dispute that occurred was between the customer and the insurance adjuster representing the cable company. The dispute was essentially over the settlement itself. It was the position of the insurance company representing the cable company that they would make only one payment as a settlement, in which a release would ultimately have to be signed, as is typical with liability claims. The issue with only one payment settling the whole claim is, in our opinion, the backsplash behind a damaged cabinet had a high probability of being damaged during the removal of the charred countertop. With only one check issued to settle the claim, any damage to the backsplash would not have been covered. It is typical with homeowner’s claims that a situation like this would be covered under a supplement to the original settlement. The supplement process is designed to keep jobs moving forward and gives the flexibility to address unforeseen damages. With this being a liability claim, everyone was at the mercy of what the insurance company representing the cable company was willing to pay. It should be noted that we advised the customer on numerous occasions that the quickest and most efficient way to resolve the claim would be to file a claim with his own homeowner’s insurance company. We further advised him that it would be our preference to deal with his insurance company in order to avoid the delays and difficulties associated with liability claims. In short, our advice up front was for us to reach an agreed price with the customer’s insurance carrier and then allow the insurance carrier to handle a settlement with the cable company. For the record, this is a practice that is common within our industry and is the preferred process by all involved. In fact most homeowner’s policies state that they have a right to deny the claim if their insured attempts to resolve a liability claim without them. • “VRS demanded deposits up front to complete the job and when I discussed the possibility of litigation against the cable company to obtain payment as promised, VRS promptly refused to complete the job.” We interpret this as the customer feels he was wronged by VRS because we decided to refuse the reconstruction portion of the job because of the involvement of an attorney. The chain of events outlined below show this is more complex than the perceived involvement of an attorney leading us to cut ties. Our company policy for non-emergency jobs is to collect a partial deposit before we begin the work. Our payment schedule is one that is common practice and widely used within the restoration industry. We entered into this job with a signed authorization to perform fire mitigation services to clean soot and neutralize odors caused by the battery fire. This phase was completed by VRS and paid for by the customer. The second phase of the job is the actual reconstruction of the damaged property. The reconstruction portion is a separate job and requires a separate contract. It is important to understand that this contract was never signed by the customer even after a few attempts by us to have them sign the agreement. Since they would not consider involving their insurance company we advised them to pay the first deposit, known as a draw, which would allow us to get started. Only then would we be able to determine the need for a supplement and include it in their settlement. [redacted] The customer refused that option and proceeded to send an email stating they would not “write anybody any checks until we have the money from the insurance company in our possession to cover those checks for ALL costs.” He went on further to say “I am passed being pissed. I am tired of being whipsawed between you and the insurance companies…”. The dialogue involving this started on 10/10/14 and ultimately ended on 10/12/14 when our employee sent an email stating “Call your insurance agent. VRS has gone above and beyond, and will not continue our risk any longer. [redacted], if you think I/VRS have whipsawed you, I’m truly sorry you feel that way.” With this response to the customer we feel that we gave sufficient notification to the customer that we were pulling our company from consideration of performing the reconstruction. We do use the involvement of an attorney as a reason to evaluate whether or not we have a level of comfort to proceed with any job. In this case, the involvement of an attorney played no role in our decision. The decision not to accept the job was due to the customer’s display of hostility and distrust towards VRS. Subsequently, the customer never responded or acknowledged our email to him stating we will not continue. On 10/30/14, we received an email from the customer stating they had received word from the cable company and they had agreed to write a check to fully indemnify the customer. In the same email, the customer stated they wanted VRS to schedule the work. In response to the customer’s request, we notified them for the 2nd time of our preference to bill for what we have done and decline to offer our services for the reconstruction work. The reasons were then reiterated in more detail with an effort to save the working relationship between the customer and the VRS employee [redacted]. The customer then acknowledged the 2nd notification stating that no attorney had been engaged and they wanted us to continue [redacted] The fact that our stance did not change even after he indicated there was no attorney involvement, shows that involvement of an attorney did not ultimately lead us to pull our name from consideration. • “… they proceeded to bad mouth us to our friends and business associates.” It would be counterproductive for us to “bad mouth” a customer or former customer as our reputation within the community is very important to us. We can only assume this is a false statement. • “We did receive 100% restitution from the cable company and I had to engage another contractor to compete the job VRS had bid. It is now clear that none of this would have happened if VRS had done a more complete estimate of the damage and included all of the repairs needed which were ultimately paid for.” To our knowledge the customer was paid in full based on the estimate provided by VRS (see excerpt from email dated 11/04/14 4:47PM, B-1, “[Cable Company Name] is delivering a check for the full amount this week.”). We can only assume the customer is referring to the time it took to resolve the claim when stating “…none of this would have happened…”. We agree 100% that no homeowner should be forced to decide whether to pay out of pocket over a line drawn about a supplement. However, we do not feel as though we could have not done anything more to reach a quicker resolution. Once the cable company’s insurance adjuster stated they would only make one payment, we had no other viable options but to withdraw. It was not until the customer wrote a letter to the V.P. of Operations for the cable company that the claim picked up any forward momentum [redacted] • “VRS represented that they would handle all of the dealings with the insurance company. They did not. We spent many hours on the phone with the insurance adjuster to resolve the matters that VRS had caused by their faulty estimating.” We feel as though we did handle all of the specifics with the insurance company representing the cable company. The hours the customer spent on the phone was necessary because ultimately the settlement out of court was going to be between the cable company and customer. Once it was evident there would be no option of the customer providing the deposit and the insurance company took the hard stance that only one check would be written, the only thing that would have moved this along would be the customer’s involvement. In response to faulty estimating, we are under the impression the claim was settled based on our estimate and the customer was able to have another contractor perform the reconstruction based on our estimate. Respectfully, we feel that it was our estimating that ultimately led to the settlement. This was stated by the customer as the “full amount” in the email labeled B-1, dated 11/4/14. • “All of which points to a gross misrepresentation of the services they say they will provide compared to what they actually do.” We emphatically disagree with the customer on this as well. We had many conversations throughout the entire process with the customer and cable company’s insurance representatives explaining what we could and could not do. As outlined in all of the attached email conversations and job notes, we had done all we could have done in this situation. In conclusion, we feel we did not misrepresent our services to the customer and the difficulties the customer experienced stemmed from how the representatives for the cable company handled this claim. Additionally, at the onset of communication with the customer, we actually cautioned him about not involving his own insurance company, while instead attempting to settle the claim with the cable company’s insurance representative on his own. Again, we thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to this complaint. We have worked diligently as a company to provide quality services with the highest integrity and ethics. We feel that this customer received his desired settlement due to our efforts. With that being said, the statements and documents enclosed exonerate VRS of any wrong doing, misrepresentation or any other actions that warrant an official complaint with the Revdex.com. It is our hope that the Revdex.com will take this letter into consideration and not allow this complaint to negatively affect our Revdex.com Reliability Report. We have reviewed every aspect of the job and are confident that we did all we could under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.

While I appreciate the detailed response from VRS, it comes from someone who was never involved in any of the interactions between me and the company. The respondent is relying on the anecdotal information from his employees who have mischaracterized and flatly lied about the circumstances and the exchanges between us. The facts are very clear and the most apparent fact is that this is a company that refuses to allow any customer to be right, but instead is willing to trash a customer to maintain a posture with an insurance company. My company is a service company and I have 40+ years dealing with clients and have never in my professional life encountered any organization less respectful of a customer as I have in my experience with VRS.