All New Again®

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:
The company owner has been issued a check from my insurance company that I delivered personally. He had previously told me to talk to his lawyer and not to contact him, his employees, or his business so, I had a police officer to escort me so he would not try to have me arrested for trespassing. His lawyer has contacted me offering to drop the alleged balance of $plus legal fess and interest accruing and consider the issue resolved if I agreed to sign a Settlement Agreement where I agree to cancel my complaint with the Revdex.com and remove my negative review from Yelp. As much as I can not afford to pay the money and I truly believe that they have received all that they are owed and not only breached the original contract, caused an extreme amount of emotional distress in my home, and have since unfairly invoiced me and my insurance company, on top of being rude, degrading and slanderous, I told the truth in my complaint. It was real and I reported it exactly as it happened with the amount of space given
I do not want to erase the truth about a company's improper treatment, bullying, refusal to follow processes, and inflated charges for a SettlementI feel as if they are trying to bribe me to admit that I lied on them and give up my right to file a complaint. Being a woman, knowing how often and how many different ways women are taken advantage of, lied on, and being paid off to be silent, I can not do it. That seems like reporting a rape then saying "no he did not do it" out of fear of what he will do to you. I will not be "raped" of my right to tell the truth when I have been wronged. All New Again may have gotten it right a million times before but there is a first time for everything and no one is perfect. They got this one wrong. They need to admit that and stop trying to bully me with threats and shady deals into paying them over double what the incomplete work they did was worth. Another contractor had to come in and complete the work. They followed the proper process with my insurance company, they got paid, I never saw an invoice. That could have been All New Again but, they made different choices and should live with them without trying to make my life miserable because I am holding them accountable for the decisions and business conduct of their employees
I attached the invoice dispute that I sent to my insurance company. After having to argumentatively go through each line of it over the phone with the owner on 12/29/2015, I looked it over again after he hung up on me and realized where the inflated charges were. I sent the discrepancies to the insurance company and they issued a check. I actually helped All New Again get a payment after the insurance company had denied their claim. I should not have to accept a "legal bribe" Settlement Agreement for that to resolve our issue
Sincerely,*** ***

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:
The company owner has been issued a check from my insurance company that I delivered personally. He had previously told me to talk to his lawyer and not to contact him, his employees, or his business so, I had a police officer to escort me so he would not try to have me arrested for trespassing. His lawyer has contacted me offering to drop the alleged balance of $plus legal fess and interest accruing and consider the issue resolved if I agreed to sign a Settlement Agreement where I agree to cancel my complaint with the Revdex.com and remove my negative review from Yelp. As much as I can not afford to pay the money and I truly believe that they have received all that they are owed and not only breached the original contract, caused an extreme amount of emotional distress in my home, and have since unfairly invoiced me and my insurance company, on top of being rude, degrading and slanderous, I told the truth in my complaint. It was real and I reported it exactly as it happened with the amount of space given
I do not want to erase the truth about a company's improper treatment, bullying, refusal to follow processes, and inflated charges for a SettlementI feel as if they are trying to bribe me to admit that I lied on them and give up my right to file a complaint. Being a woman, knowing how often and how many different ways women are taken advantage of, lied on, and being paid off to be silent, I can not do it. That seems like reporting a rape then saying "no he did not do it" out of fear of what he will do to you. I will not be "raped" of my right to tell the truth when I have been wronged. All New Again may have gotten it right a million times before but there is a first time for everything and no one is perfect. They got this one wrong. They need to admit that and stop trying to bully me with threats and shady deals into paying them over double what the incomplete work they did was worth. Another contractor had to come in and complete the work. They followed the proper process with my insurance company, they got paid, I never saw an invoice. That could have been All New Again but, they made different choices and should live with them without trying to make my life miserable because I am holding them accountable for the decisions and business conduct of their employees
I attached the invoice dispute that I sent to my insurance company. After having to argumentatively go through each line of it over the phone with the owner on 12/29/2015, I looked it over again after he hung up on me and realized where the inflated charges were. I sent the discrepancies to the insurance company and they issued a check. I actually helped All New Again get a payment after the insurance company had denied their claim. I should not have to accept a "legal bribe" Settlement Agreement for that to resolve our issue
Sincerely,*** ***

All New Again (“ANA”) has reviewed the complaint filed by *** *** (“Customer”).? ANA has also reviewed the entire company file, all email communications, all pictures, all invoices, all estimates, time cards, GPS records, etcWhile ANA is sorry that the Customer believes we did not
charge a “fair and reasonable” price for labor and materials, the Customers statement of “a very good and knowledgeable plumber” and was “was polite, knowledgeable and competent” is rewarding to hear.? ANA prides ourselves on customer service and charging reasonable prices for services rendered.? The facts, as written in the Customers complaint, are not correct and are misleading.? Here are the facts known to ANA after a very thorough audit of all of the facts.? The Customer requested ANA give a proposal for repairing the shower drain and flange.? ANA submitted a written proposal and the Customer signed it.? ANA completed the services and the Customer signed a Certificate of Satisfaction.? The Customer was so impressed with ANA’s work the Customer had ANA do some more work.? ANA submitted a another proposal, the Customer signed it, ANA completed those services as well, and the Customer signed another Certificate of Satisfaction.? The Customer paid in full.? After the Customer signed the proposal, and ANA completed the services, and ANA was paid in full, the Customer now thinks the services are too much without any supporting documentation to justify the accusation.? Moreover, the Customer talks about the time ANA was on site (9:AM to 2:PM) but fails to acknowledge the time to get parts, travel time and the parts needed.? However, ANA has reviewed the time cards and material invoices and we fall well below the average of $hr(based on what the Customer said she researched for Seattle rates)Lastly, the Customer fails to state in the complaint that she also had a water loss whereas the water flooded the neighbors unit and the Customer is responsible and refuses to pay for it.? ANA believes that the complaint filed with the Revdex.com is frivolous and nothing more than a “shake down” from the Customer and her neighbor in an attempt to reduce the liability of the services performed both on plumbing and the emergency water mitigation services performed by ANA.? In closing, based on the facts as outlined above, ANA will not credit any part of the invoices as the price for the services rendered were far below industry standards.? ANA has attached pages of supporting documentation to this complaint.? ? We sincerely hope any potential customers reading this complaint will see that the track record and reputation of ANA speaks for itself.?

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I paid the plumbing bill in full, April 5th, on the day the work was done? No "Shake down" as you claim.My credit card was charged $1370.60.As I was home, I know the work took hrs max? ? Perhaps a bid or estimate, was given several days earlier to my neighbor who contacted youI was out of state at the time.$457/hour is high!Home Advisor indicates a plumbing bill of $is on the high side.Average cost per plumber/ hour varies? I called around$200/hr was quoted to me twice
Sincerely,
*** ***

All New Again (hereinafter “ANA”) has reviewed the complaint.? Respectfully, it is unfounded and we disagree.? In addition to Ms*** (hereinafter “Customer”) being misled by her insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual (hereinafter “Carrier”), she has misconstrued the facts and owes ANA for
emergency services work that was performed at her home a year ago that still has not been paid.?
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015, the Customer hired ANA as her contractor of choice for emergency water mitigation services.? ANA, as an Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration (IICRC) Certified Firm, set up equipment to stabilize the home to prevent secondary damages following the IICRC guidelines.? On that same day, *** ***, an ANA Federally Certified Building Inspector, conducted the state required asbestos sampling (WAC 296-62-07721) before removing building materials and took the samples to the lab.?
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015, the Carrier (*** ***) called ANA wanting information regarding the loss.? ANA explained to the Carrier that ANA is not a program vendor (meaning we don’t have a contract with the Carrier to do what they tell us to do) and that ANA was hired by the Customer, not from the Carrier.? ANA told the Carrier when the job was completed, ANA would send a fair and reasonable invoice with all of the supporting documentation to the Customer and Carrier for those incurred expenses for emergency services.? This is the industry standard practice for emergency services.?
On Thursday, January 29, 2015, while ANA was at the Customers home monitoring the equipment, the Customer and the Carrier’s adjuster were on site.? ANA explained the loss and what had occurred and the adjuster afforded coverage to the Customer.? ANA explained to the adjuster ANA was waiting for the lab reports so ANA could start demolition and probably wouldn’t have them until Friday, January 30, ? The Customer asked ANA to call the Carrier’s water mitigation department.? ANA explained to the Customer that the Carrier already called ANA.? In addition, ANA explained to the Customer that ANA doesn’t work for the Carrier and ANA would not call them nor was it required to do so since the Customer hired ANA, not the Carrier.? The Customer said if ANA didn’t call, ANA would have to leave and the Customer would go with the Carriers hired contractor.? ANA picked up its equipment at the Customers request and peacefully moved on.? ANA invoiced the Customer for $5,
For eleven (11) months ANA tried unsuccessfully to get paid for the emergency services performed.? Finally, after numerous attempts to get the Customer to pay her bills, ANA sent an invoice with interest added for the services performed a year earlier.? Well, this worked
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Ms*** called ANA and talked to the CEO, *** *** (hereinafter “CEO”), demanding the CEO and Customer go through every line item.? The CEO happily obliged and the Customer and CEO went through every single line item charge.? At first, the Customer incorrectly stated ANA had inflated the invoice denying most of the equipment, containment barriers, floor protection, etc., charged for were used at the Customers home.? However, the Customer reluctantly agreed to EVERY line item once the CEO presented her with the documentation (pictures) validating the fair and reasonable invoice.? In addition, the CEO offered the Customer a very generous offer of reducing the invoice to $4,500.? With interest that had accrued this was a $1,discount.? Clearly, the Customer wanted to take advantage of ANA and wanted more and thought since there was a disagreement she didn’t have to pay at all.? The Customer became extremely argumentative and combative so the CEO ended the phone call
On January 1, 2016, the CEO wrote a letter to the Customer extending the generous offer until January 15, ? The CEO further stated in the letter that if the offer of $4,was not accepted then ANA would turn the file over to their attorney for collection actions
Regarding the Customers desired settlement, ANA finds it disturbing that the Customers desired settlement states “I should not have to pay at all” when the Customer has acknowledged every line item charged for services were performed in the Customers home .? Although ANA can appreciate there are two perceptions, it is clearly obvious that the Customer “wants something for nothing” by this comment.? ANA finds it further disturbing that the Customer is accusing ANA of threatening the Carrier and the Customer in the Customers home and that the Customer jeopardized her safety in doing so.? This fabricated story is simply untrue.? In fact, ANA finds it odd that this accusation was never commented verbally nor in writing to any ANA employee until now, a year later.? Odd!? Lastly, regarding the Customers statement of asbestos testing she feels was done in error, in the letter written to the Customer by the CEO as outlined above, the Customer has been referred to WAC 296-62-which states asbestos surveys must be done on all homes prior to demolition regardless of the date the home was built.?

All New Again (hereinafter “ANA”) has reviewed the complaint.  Respectfully, it is unfounded and we disagree.  In addition to Ms. [redacted] (hereinafter “Customer”) being misled by her insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual (hereinafter “Carrier”), she has misconstrued the facts and owes ANA for...

emergency services work that was performed at her home a year ago that still has not been paid. 
On Tuesday, January 27, 2015, the Customer hired ANA as her contractor of choice for emergency water mitigation services.  ANA, as an Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration (IICRC) Certified Firm, set up equipment to stabilize the home to prevent secondary damages following the IICRC guidelines.  On that same day, [redacted], an ANA Federally Certified Building Inspector, conducted the state required asbestos sampling (WAC 296-62-07721) before removing building materials and took the samples to the lab. 
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015, the Carrier ([redacted]) called ANA wanting information regarding the loss.  ANA explained to the Carrier that ANA is not a program vendor (meaning we don’t have a contract with the Carrier to do what they tell us to do) and that ANA was hired by the Customer, not from the Carrier.  ANA told the Carrier when the job was completed, ANA would send a fair and reasonable invoice with all of the supporting documentation to the Customer and Carrier for those incurred expenses for emergency services.  This is the industry standard practice for emergency services. 
On Thursday, January 29, 2015, while ANA was at the Customers home monitoring the equipment, the Customer and the Carrier’s adjuster were on site.  ANA explained the loss and what had occurred and the adjuster afforded coverage to the Customer.  ANA explained to the adjuster ANA was waiting for the lab reports so ANA could start demolition and probably wouldn’t have them until Friday, January 30, 2015.  The Customer asked ANA to call the Carrier’s water mitigation department.  ANA explained to the Customer that the Carrier already called ANA.  In addition, ANA explained to the Customer that ANA doesn’t work for the Carrier and ANA would not call them nor was it required to do so since the Customer hired ANA, not the Carrier.  The Customer said if ANA didn’t call, ANA would have to leave and the Customer would go with the Carriers hired contractor.  ANA picked up its equipment at the Customers request and peacefully moved on.  ANA invoiced the Customer for $5,015.20.
For eleven (11) months ANA tried unsuccessfully to get paid for the emergency services performed.  Finally, after numerous attempts to get the Customer to pay her bills, ANA sent an invoice with interest added for the services performed a year earlier.  Well, this worked.
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015, Ms. [redacted] called ANA and talked to the CEO, [redacted] (hereinafter “CEO”), demanding the CEO and Customer go through every line item.  The CEO happily obliged and the Customer and CEO went through every single line item charge.  At first, the Customer incorrectly stated ANA had inflated the invoice denying most of the equipment, containment barriers, floor protection, etc., charged for were used at the Customers home.  However, the Customer reluctantly agreed to EVERY line item once the CEO presented her with the documentation (pictures) validating the fair and reasonable invoice.  In addition, the CEO offered the Customer a very generous offer of reducing the invoice to $4,500.  With interest that had accrued this was a $1,000 discount.  Clearly, the Customer wanted to take advantage of ANA and wanted more and thought since there was a disagreement she didn’t have to pay at all.  The Customer became extremely argumentative and combative so the CEO ended the phone call.
On January 1, 2016, the CEO wrote a letter to the Customer extending the generous offer until January 15, 2016.  The CEO further stated in the letter that if the offer of $4,500 was not accepted then ANA would turn the file over to their attorney for collection actions.
Regarding the Customers desired settlement, ANA finds it disturbing that the Customers desired settlement states “I should not have to pay at all” when the Customer has acknowledged every line item charged for services were performed in the Customers home .  Although ANA can appreciate there are two perceptions, it is clearly obvious that the Customer “wants something for nothing” by this comment.  ANA finds it further disturbing that the Customer is accusing ANA of threatening the Carrier and the Customer in the Customers home and that the Customer jeopardized her safety in doing so.  This fabricated story is simply untrue.  In fact, ANA finds it odd that this accusation was never commented verbally nor in writing to any ANA employee until now, a year later.  Odd!  Lastly, regarding the Customers statement of asbestos testing she feels was done in error, in the letter written to the Customer by the CEO as outlined above, the Customer has been referred to WAC 296-62-07721 which states asbestos surveys must be done on all homes prior to demolition regardless of the date the home was built.