American Technologies

Re: ID# [redacted] To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for bringing to our attention the issue referenced in your letter dated 4/6/(ID # [redacted] )Please find below and attached information we hope you find useful in reviewing this issueAt the time of our Project Director's inspection on June 15, 2017, the customer pointed out two areas of staining on the ceiling - one in the second floor vanity area and the other in a second floor bedroomThe Project Director visibly confirmed stains on ceiling of each areaThe Project Director used a device to measure moisture in building materials and placed it on the stainsNo elevated moisture was identifiedAs a courtesy to the customer, the Project Director also measured moisture levels in areas of adjacent drywallNo elevated moisture was detectedFollowing the inspection, an estimate was created and sent to the carrierA work authorization and a copy of the same estimate was sent to the customer for review and consideration on June 16, Copies attachedAs you will see, the work authorization, nor the estimate used as an attachment to the work authorization, reflect drywall removal and or drywall replacementThe work authorization and the estimate refer to drywall texture / tape joint repairThe customer signed the work authorization and returned it on 6/23/The work, in accordance with the scope and work authorization were completed on July 6, The customer acknowledged in writing satisfactory completion of the work on July 12, Following the customer's signed acknowledgement of satisfactory completion of the work, the customer requested that additional air quality test be performedAs this work was not included in the estimate originally submitted to and agreed upon by the customer, the supplemental work request was submitted to the carrier for approvalThe carrier approved and the testing was completed by a third party entity on August 14, While the complete report is attached, please find below a excerpt for your review and considerationFor this investigation: • No visible mold or noticeable odor(s) were evident; • Reportedly involved/affected building material(s) were "dry" in accordance with utilized moisture meter’s manufacturer’s literature and/or as compared to background reading(s) where possible – defined as one or more moisture reading(s) from unaffected area(s) of the same material(s) at the same time; and • Sampling (air) results indicated that total and/or individual mold spore level(s)/amount(s) were sufficiently similar to or less than those detected in non-affected space(s)/area(s) and/or outdoors (or typically found outdoors) at the time of collectionNote, sampling results are limited in that they represent mold spore levels at the time of sampling and changes in ventilation, temperature, weather, occupancy, equipment, contaminant sources, products used, and other conditions may cause variations in sampling resultsAs set out above, no unsafe airborne mold spores levels and/or condition(s) were discovered in the 2nd floor nursery/bedroom and nursery/bedroom vanity areas of the residenceNo further remediation work is necessary in the subject area(s) as of the date of this reportIf water/moisture intrusion is not addressed in a timely manner, mold growth/proliferation can occur in as quickly as 24-hoursIdentification and repair of water/moisture intrusion source(s) is paramount in combating microbial growth and/or contamination.While ATI has completed all work in accordance with the contract and scope agreed upon by the customer and believes payment is due, we take all customer concerns very seriouslyAs such, following receipt of your 4/6/letter, we reached out to the customer, discussed the situation and in a good faith gesture, offered to expand the scope of work - including, but not necessarily limited to setting up containment barriers with negative pressure in the bedroom and vanity, making inspection cuts, visibly inspecting the ceiling cavities, then patching / painting the appropriate areasThe customer accepted the offer and work will start on or about 4/25/Thank you again for bringing this to our attention and working with ATIShould you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us directlyKindest professional regards, [redacted] Regional Manager 858-530-x ***

This company was supposed to work on my houseWe had a flood at the end of May, it is now July 5thNick [redacted] is the Supervisor in charge, my drywall was supposed to be done today and my vanity installedNick waited in his Truck for hours to tell me that a truck broke down and we may have to do thus tomorrowI just received a call saying this job will now take place at am tomorrow, lolThis company is a joke and I'm not sure why USAA would suggest them for a job

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The business owner is flat out lyingFirst, I brought my car back to him six times after the initial brake job was done and they never discovered the problem with the brake hardwareIt was out of fear for my family's safety that I took the car to [redacted] and they discovered the problem immediatelySecond, the owner NEVER offered me a store credit because he has been dodging me for months, he has not returned any of my messages and he flat out lied to me when I had showed him all of the destroyed brake parts back in January of this year when he said he would get back to me in a few days...HE NEVER GOT BACK TO ME AT ALL! And finally, after putting mine and my family's safety at risk because of their incompetent service, including the initial installation and the six follow up visits, I would never let them work on my car againThis response from the owner is the first time that I am hearing about this store credit he is offeringIf he had been honorable and made that offer back in January I would have accepted it but now it is too lateI would never let him work on my car again because he has proven himself to be untrustworthy Regards, [redacted]

November 5, Via Electronic Mail: [redacted] Ms [redacted] ** Revdex.com Viewridge Avenue # San Diego, CA 92***- Re: Complaint ID # [redacted] Complainant: Mr [redacted] Dear Ms**: We are in receipt of your written correspondence received electronically on October 23, and accordingly, wish to respond to the complaint Mr [redacted] filed against our firm American Technologies, Inc(hereafter referred to as "ATI") was contracted by Mr [redacted] and/or his representative to render emergency services; mold remediation; contents pack out as well as reconstruction services at his property as a result of water damage sustained on April10, Prior to engaging in any of the aforementioned work at Mr [redacted] 's residence, he was provided a Work Proposal and Authorization to review upon which was delineated either the services to be rendered at the residence as well as the respective cost or where the work to be performed was specified, a scope of work or estimate incorporated by mention and this applicable document upon which the corresponding price was identified was provided in tandem with this contract(Said documents are herein enclosed and are referenced as Exhibit A.) Accordingly, Mr [redacted] was knowledgeable as to the services which he contracted with ATI to perform as well as the ensuing amount that would be owed to ATI upon completion of each of the four segments of its work After ATI completed a respective stage of its work an invoice was generated by its Accounts Receivable department upon which was identified the services to which it corresponded as well as the resultant sum dueBy the end of June, three separate invoices had been submitted to Mr [redacted] for his subsequent reviewThese invoices were dated May 22, 2014; May 27, and June 30, and corresponded to mold remediation ($3,316.98); water mitigation/emergency services ($1,550.54) and contents pack out ($4,222.50), respectively(A copy of same is hereafter incorporated by reference and is identified as Exhibit B.) An ATI representative did contact Mr [redacted] to discuss payment for services rendered as he states within his complaint; however, the interaction that ensued in July and August was solely for the purposes of procuring payment of the aforementioned services for which he had been billedThe structure work was not incorporated in the discussion as the invoice for same had not yet been submitted to his attention given that these services were ongoingIt was not until August 13, that an invoice in the amount of $10,was generated and sent to Mr [redacted] 's attention for payment(Said document is hereafter attached is identified as Exhibit c.) The sum identified thereon was a result of the initial contract value of $10,as well as an additional sum of $for kitchen repairs which was noted in the Work Proposal and Authorization dated June 3, and subsequently executed by Mr [redacted] (This corresponding document is referenced hereafter and identified as Exhibit D.) All invoices submitted for payment were for work performed and for work approved and contracted by Mr [redacted] for ATI to performAt no time was Mr [redacted] billed for services that we did not render A teleconference was held on October 24, at which Mr [redacted] ; the assigned adjuster from California Casualty, [redacted] , and an ATI representative, [redacted] were presentThe intent of the meeting was to reconcile ATI's billing with the funds issued by the insurance carrier and determine whether any outstanding monies were still owed either on the part of the insurance carrier or Mr [redacted] As discussed and as memorialized in an email sent to Mr [redacted] from [redacted] on Monday, October 27, 2014, (a copy of which is herein enclosed and noted as Exhibit E), the following sums were billed to Mr [redacted] , our client, by ATI : $3,(mold remediation); $1,(water mitigation/emergency services); $4,(contents pack out); and $10, (reconstruction services) for a grand total of $20,Mr [redacted] had submitted payment to ATI via personal check number [redacted] in the amount of $10,This left the amount of $5,as owed to ATI for services rendered once Mr [redacted] endorsed the check that would be forthcoming from the insurance carrier for contents pack out as noted below Accordingly, Mr [redacted] was duly apprised that this was the amount that was owed to ATI to clear the outstanding balance(This sum included the two deductibles of $for which Mr [redacted] was personally responsible.) Relative to funds paid to Mr [redacted] by the insurance carrier, the adjuster had issued joint checks made payable to Mr [redacted] and ATI in the following amounts which he subsequently cashed: $5,(only $3,to be used to pay ATI); $1,550.54; $9,and $for a total of $14,The amount of $4,was determined to be unpaid by the insurance carrier and a check in this amount would be sent to Mr [redacted] 's attention for endorsementAs previously stated, Mr [redacted] was apprised in said electronic correspondence that the amount of $5,was due ATI for services rendered and that such payment was due by October 31, as a result of its past due statusAs of the date of this letter, Mr [redacted] has not responded to the email, objected to same nor has his outstanding payment been forthcoming We thank Mr [redacted] for bringing to our attention his concerns regarding the manner in which the way he feels that he was treated by a few of our employeesWe have conducted a thorough investigation into the matter and have taken action, if such action was warranted As per our values, ATI is committed to treating all of our clients with respectAccordingly, no deference is issued or disregard inferred based upon where someone residesWe are happy and pleased to assist any of our clients during their time of need regardless of where the property address might be locatedAs such, we regret that Mr [redacted] feels that such was not the case Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 283-extension *** Respectfully submitted, [redacted] President

Please allow this written correspondence to serve as affirmation that American Technologies, Inchas received notification that a complaint has been filed by Mr [redacted] ***We are in communication with Mr [redacted] regarding his concerns and will keep the Revdex.com apprised as to the status of the matter.Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 283-extension ***

Revdex.com Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention even though I am aware of it because I am currently working with our common customer to resolve the issue within the *** program customer complaint department with *** I have offered the customer a store credit that he can use
on this vehicle or other vehicles that he ownsHe can do anything from tires to oil changes and anything in between. What happened was a mistake from a less experienced technician that is no longer employed by usEven though we offer a year warranty on parts and labor on anything that we do here in the shop we wish that the customer had come back to us after getting diagnosed by the dealer we would have been more than happy to pay for diagnostic fees and redo the work for him at no charge of courseBut he chose to be rude and we could not reason with him what so everHe insulted us yelled and got out of controlThe brakes at all times were safe and the customer was safe the issue was with the inner hard ware and the worst case scenario was a noiseWe are reasonable people and we want to build a good reputation but mistakes happen because we are human. I want to thank you and I hope that you will take what I stated into consideration before you make your decision

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The business owner is flat out lying. First, I brought my car back to him six times after the initial brake job was done and they never discovered the problem with the brake hardware. It was out of fear for my family's safety that I took the car to [redacted] and they discovered the problem immediately. Second, the owner NEVER offered me a store credit because he has been dodging me for months, he has not returned any of my messages and he flat out lied to me when I had showed him all of the destroyed brake parts back in January of this year when he said he would get back to me in a few days...HE NEVER GOT BACK TO ME AT ALL! And finally, after putting mine and my family's safety at risk because of their incompetent service, including the initial installation and the six follow up visits, I would never let them work on my car again. This response from the owner is the first time that I am hearing about this store credit he is offering. If he had been honorable and made that offer back in January I would have accepted it but now it is too late. I would never let him work on my car again because he has proven himself to be untrustworthy.
Regards,
[redacted]