Acme Flood Inc

We have provided Mr *** with the info he requested to settle this claim and we are willing to remove the lien on his property upon satisfaction of the remaining balance owedSee below and attached for communication from our office to Mr *** regarding
this issue. All work performed was in accordance with IICRC regulations and we use Xactmate for our billing, this program is accepted by all major insurance companies and is considered industry standard pricing for water damage mitigation. The lien was filed due to Mr *** refusal to settle his invoice and is the only option we have in securing our payment.
Dear ***
Please see attached revised scope of work for the CATEGORY water loss at your property on Park Ridge
Attached
to the scope is a copy of our technicians time sheets, as you can see
the total hours performed on your property is hours between (3)
technicians. That doesn't include ***'s hoursUnfortunately the
technician who took pictures of your property lost his phone and we are
unable to provide photosI have also attached to this email information
from The IICRC which explains rules and regulations related to your CAT SEWAGE loss
As a courtesy
I have removed what you are calling (DOUBLE BILLING) on the original
scopeI also removed the TOILET DETACH and RESET which you are stating
is excessive
Our job is to mitigate and contain the situation as quickly and efficiently as possibleWe are unable to give an estimate at the initial meeting because we are unable to see the extent of the damage until we actually start the workIt was necessary for us to remediate in the 2nd bedroom to prevent further damage and to prevent the spreading of harmful, contaminated water
Even
with all of the exceptions(deductions) made our bill is still
$8,We would like to come to a common resolution that suits both
partiesPlease feel free to contact me with any further questions
Sincerely,
*** ***
Acme Flood, Inc
800-543-x

This complaint has been resolved. Customer paid in full agreed upon amount and we have recorded a lien release.
[redacted]
ACME Flood Inc

ACME Flood uses an industry standard billing program (xactimate) that is accepted by ALL insurance carriers. Our prices and fees are in line with IICRC guidelines and we are routinely paid by homeowners insurance using this billing standard.  Mr and Mrs [redacted] are upset that their deductible is...

$2500, hence they are responsible to pay our bill "out of pocket".  They are apparently unaware of IICRC billing guidelines and practices and are refusing to pay our bill as they have deemed it to be too expensive.  When a customer calls a water damage company outside of normal working hours and is experiencing a CAT 3 black water emergency, our company responds immediately to remediate the issue.  While it is unfortunate that Mr and Mrs [redacted] chose to have a very high deductible, it is still very much their responsibility to pay for our services that were rendered in accordance with IICRC guidelines for safety and proper drying procedures. 
[redacted]
ACME Flood Inc
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
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. I appreciate Ms. [redacted]'s attention to this matter, and trust the company has all intention to provide the best service to its customer.  However,  I do not think Ms. [redacted] had received proper information from her staff.
 
The complaint was not stemmed form insurance deductible.  It was about the service and the business conduct. As I pointed out in my complaint that besides taken down baseboard and placed a dehumidifier in the affected area the technician had not done any other remedies, furthermore, the technician failed to gain my approval for additional days of service.  I had requested an itemized report to understand what type of services were included in the invoice but the company failed to render one.  
 
There are several issues that I find disturbing:
1.  The technician failed to inform the homeowner of the potential service fee.
2.  The technician failed to come back on the promised day.
3.  The technician failed to gain home owner's approval for additional days of service.
4.  If there is a regulated guidelines of safety and procedures, the company could not provide a detailed list of service rendered upon request.
 
It is difficult to fathom the company employing a process treating customer's cases as an input of formula without examining what kind of services actually delivered.   As I stated in my original complaint that I am willing to pay for the service that I approved on the day of the incidence and the following day.
 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have accepted Acme Flood's compromise offer and paid them the amount required to settle the bill today.  Thanks for your help in bringing this complaint ID [redacted] to a resolution.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: 1) Would not provide estimate in advance even though Operations Director was on site. Asserted pricing would be based on industry standards as set by Xactimate software. As customer I had no way to gauge what this pricing might be.

2) Labor was double-billed. It was rolled into the tasks that were priced, then billed again as separate line items.

3) Overlapping labor was billed for monitoring of the same equipment.

4) Demolition work was performed in “Bedroom 1” and “Bedroom 1 Closet.” This was not authorized. They never called to get authorization. The first I knew of it was when another company estimated what it would take to restore the condo.

5) “Equipment take down, and monitoring” was billed at 6hrs to remove 13 pieces of equipment. This was excessive because “Equip. setup & monitoring” was billed at 2hrs. The condo is only a few steps from the parking lot and on ground level. Take down is typically faster than setup, and the monitoring was double billed.

6) Equipment rental rates (no monitoring) are excessive. Equipment appears to have been more than necessary and much of it idle most of the time. Documentation & photos of the equipment and monitoring were requested but not provided.

7) “Toilet - Detach & reset” was billed at outrageous $181.54. The stop valve was ok. There were no complications to warrant such a rate.

These concerns were discussed in writing and in person with company. They have not corrected bill. They have not provided backup documentation that they claimed to have. They instead filed a mechanics lien.Desired Settlement: I paid them the amount I calculated based on removing the double-billing, excessive hours, and excessive rates. They agreed to provide backup documentation and address some of the billing concerns in a re-figured bill. I offered to consider paying the net balance due on a corrected bill. They have not corrected the bill and not provided that backup documentation.

Their business practice makes use of the duress of an emergency situation. It is deceptive to request work authorization without any hint as to the expected pricing. They should have notified if they believed scope of work was increasing beyond what we discussed and agreed. Pricing was after the fact but included contingency paddding (as a flat rate price) when those contingencies did not happen.

Business

Response:

We have provided Mr [redacted] with the info he requested to settle this claim and we are willing to remove the lien on his property upon satisfaction of the remaining balance owed. See below and attached for communication from our office to Mr [redacted] regarding this issue. All work performed was in accordance with IICRC regulations and we use Xactmate for our billing, this program is accepted by all major insurance companies and is considered industry standard pricing for water damage mitigation. The lien was filed due to Mr [redacted] refusal to settle his invoice and is the only option we have in securing our payment.

Review: On Sunday, July 27 due to a sewage back flow I called San Diego Restoration, and Mr. [redacted], ACME technician, was sent to my house. The room affected was the down stair powder room, approximately 5'x5' in dimension. At the time the technician arrived, we had already cleaned the floor. The technician was at the property for about an hour, took down the baseboard, set up a dehumidifier, and told me he would come back on Monday, the next day, to remove the dehumidifier and re-installed the baseboard. The technician did not come back on Monday, nor had he informed us that he would not come. We made an inquiry on Tuesday to request to remove the dehumidifier, and have the baseboard re-installed. The technician came on Wednesday, however, instead of removing the machine he left the dehumidifier running without gaining my approval. The dehumidifier was removed on Thursday but the baseboard was still not re-installed as of today, 8/30/2014. Please note the dehumidifier should be removed on Monday, 7/28 but was left in my house for three additional days without my authorization. The company send in an initial invoice of $2018.16, and was adjusted to $1875.35 after complaint.

I am willing to pay for the service for a justifiable fee. However, after several e-mail exchanges, the company refused to adjust its invoice to remove those unauthorized service charges but threaten to lien my property instead.Desired Settlement: Giving the service was ordered on Sunday, I am willing to pay a fair service fee - $400 to compensate the off-hour service.

Business

Response:

ACME Flood uses an industry standard billing program (xactimate) that is accepted by ALL insurance carriers. Our prices and fees are in line with IICRC guidelines and we are routinely paid by homeowners insurance using this billing standard. Mr and Mrs [redacted] are upset that their deductible is $2500, hence they are responsible to pay our bill "out of pocket". They are apparently unaware of IICRC billing guidelines and practices and are refusing to pay our bill as they have deemed it to be too expensive. When a customer calls a water damage company outside of normal working hours and is experiencing a CAT 3 black water emergency, our company responds immediately to remediate the issue. While it is unfortunate that Mr and Mrs [redacted] chose to have a very high deductible, it is still very much their responsibility to pay for our services that were rendered in accordance with IICRC guidelines for safety and proper drying procedures.

ACME Flood Inc

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. I appreciate Ms. [redacted]'s attention to this matter, and trust the company has all intention to provide the best service to its customer. However, I do not think Ms. [redacted] had received proper information from her staff.

The complaint was not stemmed form insurance deductible. It was about the service and the business conduct. As I pointed out in my complaint that besides taken down baseboard and placed a dehumidifier in the affected area the technician had not done any other remedies, furthermore, the technician failed to gain my approval for additional days of service. I had requested an itemized report to understand what type of services were included in the invoice but the company failed to render one.