Advanced Insulation Solutions, Inc.

April 9, 2015
To Whom it may Concern
There was an issue with a job that we had done at the residence of [redacted]...ID [redacted]....He felt that more insulation needed to be added to a small area that we had done originally. We sent a crew back to his house on March 17, 2015 and...

added to this area, the problem has been taken care of.Thank you,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

I am writing in response to the above-captioned complaint on behalf of Advanced InsulationSolutions, Inc. (“AIS”). Please note that .AlS provided all goods and materials contracted for in agood and workmanlike manner. This was not a new construction project. AIS was asked toapply...

insulation to an existing structure that predated any applicable building codes.Therefore, the structure was “grandfathered” in to code compliance, long before MS providedany goods or materials to the property. Moreover, AIS was only contracted to provide theinsulation we actually installed. Our contract did not specify, or otherwise require, achievingcode compliance as though this were a new construction project.Accordingly, there are no issues with respect to code compliance. This is simply a red-herring.The consumers received the products specified. Significantly, there is rio allegation regardingthe workmanship with respect to same, They simply contend it does not meet specificationsthat were never communicated to AIS or otherwise agreed upon.Finally, like the building code allegation, the allegation regarding HICPA compliance is also ared-herring. AIS is registered to operate under HICPA. AIS’ HICPA registration and technicalcompliance with that law have absolutely nothing to do with whether AIS provided thematerials specified or whetherthey were installed in a good and workmanlike manner. Theconsumers’ complaint is notably silent in that later regard, This is simply an attempt to avoidfull payment for the goods and services agreed upon. Therefore, the complaint should bedismissed in its entirety.Advanced Insulation Solutions, Inc

I am writing in response to the above-captioned complaint on behalf of Advanced InsulationSolutions, Inc. (“AIS”). Please note that .AlS provided all goods and materials contracted for in agood and workmanlike manner. This was not a new construction project. AIS was asked toapply insulation to an...

existing structure that predated any applicable building codes.Therefore, the structure was “grandfathered” in to code compliance, long before MS providedany goods or materials to the property. Moreover, AIS was only contracted to provide theinsulation we actually installed. Our contract did not specify, or otherwise require, achievingcode compliance as though this were a new construction project.Accordingly, there are no issues with respect to code compliance. This is simply a red-herring.The consumers received the products specified. Significantly, there is rio allegation regardingthe workmanship with respect to same, They simply contend it does not meet specificationsthat were never communicated to AIS or otherwise agreed upon.Finally, like the building code allegation, the allegation regarding HICPA compliance is also ared-herring. AIS is registered to operate under HICPA. AIS’ HICPA registration and technicalcompliance with that law have absolutely nothing to do with whether AIS provided thematerials specified or whetherthey were installed in a good and workmanlike manner. Theconsumers’ complaint is notably silent in that later regard, This is simply an attempt to avoidfull payment for the goods and services agreed upon. Therefore, the complaint should bedismissed in its entirety.Advanced Insulation Solutions, Inc

Review: On Oct.13,2014 we had blown cellulose added to our attic ,over 6 inches of fiberglass insulation.At the area above the stairway the fiberglass had fallen down between the trusses.When the worker called his boss he was instructed to lay down cardboard and blow cellulose over it.It seems to be not near enough insulation in this area as the roof snow melts almost immediately above the stairwell. There is also still a cold draft at the bottom of the stairway. The contractor stopped and checked with his infared camera and agreed this needed attention. After several attempts to reach him for a fix he just won't get it done.Desired Settlement: The contractor suggested adding insulation and I want him to come and add it and make it right.

Business

Response:

April 9, 2015To Whom it may ConcernThere was an issue with a job that we had done at the residence of [redacted]...ID [redacted]....He felt that more insulation needed to be added to a small area that we had done originally. We sent a crew back to his house on March 17, 2015 and added to this area, the problem has been taken care of.Thank you,[redacted]

Review: In a ceiling/roof where Building Code requires an R Value of 38, AIS provided us with R15 & R20 spray foam insulation. They could have used a denser foam to get higher R-Value, of which we would have paid more money for.[redacted]AIS created an an unlawful contract according to PA Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), by not stating the R-Value of the insulation they were intending to install within our home.[redacted]They ignored the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) R-Value Rule. [redacted]They advertised in the yellow pages as being registered as a home improvement contractor, but they let their registration lapse from 2011 -- Jan. 26, 2016 -- yet they continued to do business, providing Erie area residents and businesses with insulation (they were in our home Nov. of 2015).[redacted]Because ours is an old house they believed they did not have to follow Building Code rules (b/c it was not being inspected.)They DO have to follow HICPA (drafting lawful contract) and FTC 'R-Value Rule' --for THESE ARE LAWS. [redacted]They took our money, gave us an inferior product, and ran.Desired Settlement: Refund the price paid ($3,770.00) Nullify the 'additional' charge that AIS believes is due to them ($937.00).

Business

Response:

I am writing in response to the above-captioned complaint on behalf of Advanced InsulationSolutions, Inc. (“AIS”). Please note that .AlS provided all goods and materials contracted for in agood and workmanlike manner. This was not a new construction project. AIS was asked toapply insulation to an existing structure that predated any applicable building codes.Therefore, the structure was “grandfathered” in to code compliance, long before MS providedany goods or materials to the property. Moreover, AIS was only contracted to provide theinsulation we actually installed. Our contract did not specify, or otherwise require, achievingcode compliance as though this were a new construction project.Accordingly, there are no issues with respect to code compliance. This is simply a red-herring.The consumers received the products specified. Significantly, there is rio allegation regardingthe workmanship with respect to same, They simply contend it does not meet specificationsthat were never communicated to AIS or otherwise agreed upon.Finally, like the building code allegation, the allegation regarding HICPA compliance is also ared-herring. AIS is registered to operate under HICPA. AIS’ HICPA registration and technicalcompliance with that law have absolutely nothing to do with whether AIS provided thematerials specified or whetherthey were installed in a good and workmanlike manner. Theconsumers’ complaint is notably silent in that later regard, This is simply an attempt to avoidfull payment for the goods and services agreed upon. Therefore, the complaint should bedismissed in its entirety.Advanced Insulation Solutions, Inc