Bath & Kitchen Refinishing St Louis LLC

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/09/25) */ Bath & Kitchen Refinishing StLouis, we live by the motto of "Quality is our first concern." On July 29, 2015, we completed a refinishing job for the complainantUpon review of the work, the complainant paid the previously agreed upon amountWhat we did not know at the time was that the complainant's husband is an HVAC professional, and created a home environment that had such an enormous vacuum effect, that it over powered our ventilatorsIn this manner, the home pulled the air from the bathroom in a way that over powered our ventilators that attempted to push the fumes out the windowSince this date, the ventilators have been tested and utilized daily, with no other issuesThis is the first time since our company has been in business that this has ever happened The complainant's husband called days after the work was completedImmediately, he advised that he wanted to file a claim with our insurance company, without giving us the opportunity to assess any damages or otherwise see what had happenedWe immediately set an appointment to meet at the complainant's home two days later, which was the complainants first availability When we arrived to the home, the complainant showed what had transpiredUpon review, we immediately took responsibility for what had happenedAlso, during the visit, we had the opportunity to review our finished product and check on its quality: it appeared goodThe complainant even advised on multiple occasions that she and her husband were happy with the work, but were (appropriately) upset about the damageWe advised the complainant that we could remove the residual coating from the surface of her possessions, which, at the time, she appeared to be comfortable withWe made immediate arrangements to arrive the next morning to resolve the matterEarly the next morning, the complainant's husband called and advised that he did not want us to resolve the matter, and said he only wanted us to file a claim with our insurance companyThough we felt strongly that we could resolve the issue, we filed our first claim ever with our insurance company It is important to recognize that we are fully insured, and that assertions made by the complainant that the damage was too extensive for our insurance company to cover are completely falseBecause of the commercial work that we are associated with, we are required to carry a $million policyLosses would not have approached this amount Upon receiving feedback from our insurance company, it was advised that the complainant, and her husband, had no intention of allowing anyone to remediate the issue, and that they insisted on a complete replacement of all items touched by the residual sprayThey would not allow the insurance company to complete estimates or assess any opportunities that would allow the complainants possessions to be returned to their pre-existing stateIn other words, our insurance company was willing to pay to have all items cleaned, but the complainant wanted everything to be completely replaced, without questionIt was at this point that our insurance company advised the complainant that if this was their stance, they would need to look into filing a claim against their own home owners policy A few weeks later, the complainants husband left a voicemail with our office where he advised the adjustor for our insurance company told the complainant that the work we performed had not been done correctly and that he wanted his money backWhen our quality control manager (an owner of the company) called the adjustor to see what the issue was, the adjustor adamantly denied making such an assertion, and went on to say he had been pressured by the complainant, during his visit to her home, to render such an opinion, but did notHe immediately called the complainant's husband to set the record straight On September 23, 2015, nearly two months after we completed our project for the complainant, which she had previously advised met her expectations, and after being advised by the insurance company that they had no intention of buying her all new home furnishings when they could return her items to pre-existing condition, she called our office with a series of complaints about our work productWhen pressed for specifics about the complaints, she was unable or unwilling to do soBecause we wanted to get an idea of how long a repair would take, we requested that she take a couple of pictures so we could begin to troubleshoot, as most of her mentioned issues, would easily be seen in a texted pictureThe complainant refused to comply with this request and asked to speak with a manager/ownerWe agreed with the request and began to work out a time for the quality control manager, who is an owner, the person who completed the original job, and our subject matter expert, to go to the home and identify the cause of concernThe complainant quickly denied the request and advised that she wanted a visit from a different manager; in this case the person who is in charge of marketing and who has little to do with the daily operationsThis made little sense, as such we did not comply with the requestIt was apparent that the complainant was not interested in a solution of any kind, but only in compensation At this point, due to the disingenuous behavior, an unwillingness to be transparent with issues and motives on the part of the complainant, we requested that further communications be addressed via email so that there would be no confusion as to what was said or implied moving forwardWe further advised we would be willing to make any fixes that fall under the scope of the warranty, but not before it was agreed upon in writing, that any work on the bathroom would be done only with all HVAC systems in the home turned off As previously stated, this is the first time we've ever had to file a claim, but did so in an attempt to make the complainant happyWe view every job as our calling card, and are disappointed that the project turned out the way it didAfter we saw what happened, we did everything we reasonably could to satisfy the requests of the complainantUnfortunately, if the complainant does not want the problem to be resolved, we can do no more than what we've done to drive a solution Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (1500, 7, 2015/09/25) */ > This is in reference to complaint in regards to Bath and Kitchen Refinishing > I am not familiar with your process and was waiting for a response to my personal e-mail > I would like this reopened so we can respond because they have fabricated conversations and facts hat never happened! We will follow up with documentation from our insurance adjusterHowever, we have attached pictures of the poor workmanship of Bath and Kitchen Refinishing > > 1) "Ventilation over powered their exhaust"Anyone in their field should now that when they are spraying a harmful product in a house and should be knowledable to turn off the home heating and air conditioning system to avoid circulation of the harmful fumes > > 2) "We were happy"; At first glance it looked adequate but there was some unequal lines they said they would return to repairA few days later after our son took a shower he reported the edges were extremely rough/sandy to touch and some of the finish is pealing offSee picture belowIt appears that the tub was not cleaned from debris due to the grit that is now present in the finished coating that has a rough surface to touchAlso, the paint job around the rim where the white inset meets the faux finish is not straightSee below > > 3) As far as "waiting days", the part of the house effected is not used much and therefoer was not discovered until cleaning the floor upstairsWe could feel the difference, smooth under rug and rough in exposed areasNot really sure why this matters, the damage was done > > 4) They claim they requested to clean and we refusedThey are not a professional cleaning or restoration service and would not want them cleaning our fine furniture and oriental rugs, etc there are professional companies that provide these services and we dd not want to experience any more damages > > 5) " We had no intention of remediating"there insurance co sent Servo pro ( [redacted] the owner phone #XXX-XXX-XXXX)) and attempted to clean the mirror with a product that the manufacture recommended and was unsuccessful at removing the epoxy and he said the items could not be cleaned [redacted] from [redacted] repesenting B & K Refinishing came to our house to a look and realized the scope of damage and highly recommended we contact our insurance companyI NEVER said I wanted everything replaced or replacement value! [redacted] was suppose to send an estimate on structural damage, walls, floors, etc and never received this information or any communication from him or [redacted] since [redacted] visited our homeI contacted our insurance co right away and they are working with usThe insurance company is in the process of listing all the damage and what needs to be cleaned, refinished and replaced > > 6) My husband did "call and complain about he workmanship on the tub and shower"The shower is chipping and the tub was described above (#2)There was never any conversation between my husband and their "quality control department"I contacted their office to let them know there is a problem with the coating and requested the owner call meThe secratary said that they would not address this until after the damage claim is completed and asked for all correspondence to be via e-mail > > Their response is grossly inaccurate and many references to conversations that never happenedI just can not believe how a company can be so dishonest > > Pure Ins is in the process of helping us determine what needs to be cleaned, refinished and replaceAfter we have completed this process we will file a complaint about the workmanship of Bath and KitchenThe service was provided in July and it's now NovemberI have spent countless hours on this issue because of their incompitence > > Please inform me on how to proceed > > Thank you, > [redacted] Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 15, 2015/12/01) */ The complainant advised that she provided pictures of poor workmanshipThe first picture she provided was that of an impact mark on the bath tub that we refinishedAn impact mark is when the surface is intentionally or unintentionally damaged by something striking the surfaceThese types of damaged areas are distinctly different from the chipping that she describedTo confirm this assertion, we sent the photo to installation defectThis impact mark would have been visually obvious at the completion of the initial job, as well as when we came to review the complainant's initial concernsAgain, when we went to the complainant's home two weeks after the initial application, she advised that she was happy with the application itselfAs this is an impact mark, and the surface damage was not present at the completion of the job, or two weeks later, we view this as customer neglect and not a product or installation defectThis would be the equivalent of having a wall painted and then blaming the painter for marks on the wall after you hit it with a blunt object The second picture was of an area that appears to be approximately 1/- 3/of an inch in sizeKeep in mind that the application area for this particular product was on an entire tub surroundAs we could not tell from the provided photo exactly what the damage was, we sent this picture the manufacturer as wellThe possible conclusions were as follows: The masking on the oval area was slightly "off" in this locationIf this was the case, the area could be fixed in a relatively short period of time, if the opportunity were provided As the imperfection was not noticed at the end of the application, nor prior to the follvisit two weeks later, the area could have been damaged by the complainant, much in the same way the tub was damagedThe picture was inconclusive, so we would need to review the area in question to verify The caulk between the tub and the surround may have been smudgedAgain, the photo was inconclusive, so this could not be concluded or ruled out If the tub has a sandy feel in a couple of areas, this can be easily fixed, and would take less than an hour to completeWe repeatedly offered to complete this repair for free, but the complainant was not interested and only wanted an owner to visit her home to provide a full refundNo photograph provided by the complainant showed any indication of peeling The complainant advised that "Anyone in their field should now that when they are spraying a harmful product in a house and should be knowledgeable to turn off the home heating and air conditioning system to avoid circulation of the harmful fumes." Unfortunately, this broad assertion is the voice of inexperience on the part of the complainantShe is ignoring the uniqueness of her home and the HVAC system she has installedOver the past few years, we have routinely completed work at hospitals, hotels, apartment complexes, college dorms, and a variety of private residencesIn doing so, we utilized the identical product and ventilation systems, and have never been called back to address a concern similar to that of the complainant'sFurthermore, we have never requested that an HVAC system be shut down on our behalfIt is simply not true that one should know to always turn the HVAC system offTo advise that we should have been cognizant of her unique situation is not reasonable The complainant asserted that she had a conversation with us regarding "unequal lines"Assertions like this are exactly why we requested that future correspondence with the complainant be in writingNo one with our company ever had a conversation with the complainant about unequal lines until after the complainant realized that our insurance company was not going to buy them all new furnitureA few days after receiving the estimate from the insurance company, the complainant called (nearly two months after the initial application) with a variety of new complaints and allegations, of which this was oneIt was specifically at this instance that we requested all communications be in writingWe wanted to protect ourselves from future misunderstandings regarding conversations that never took place The good thing about involving outside parties is that they can validate assertions made by either partyAs such, we took the liberty of calling [redacted] with Serve ProHe advised that he in fact had completed harder jobsFurthermore, he was familiar with acrylic urethanes (our product) and how to remove it from the impacted areasHe simply opted not to work with the complainantHe advised that the complainant created an uncomfortable work environment and attempted to get him to agree that certain surfaces had been impacted where he couldn't see or feel it (this is the same routine she had attempted with the insurance adjustor) Subsequent to reading the complainant's most recent assertions regarding [redacted] from [redacted] , we contacted our insurance company again to verify the complainant's claimsIt was advised the complainant was provided a structural estimate on September 17, [redacted] advised that the complainant believed that she and her husband were entitled to moreAs a result of the conversation, the complainant was advised to contact her own insurance company, so [redacted] could deal with themThe structural estimate was provided before the complainant made the complaint with the Revdex.comThis is in direct contradiction to her assertion that she never received the structural estimate or the notion that we were not fully insured which was alleged in her original complaint The complainant believes that we referenced a conversation between her husband and our quality control managerWe believe that she may have misunderstood our previously documented explanationIt was not asserted by us that the quality control manager called the complainant's husbandIt was asserted that the husband left a message regarding a fabricated conversation between him and the insurance adjustorIn our previous statement, we advised that the insurance adjustor called the husband to confront him about his erroneous assertionWe did not call the husband back after the insurance adjustor advised what the reality of the situation was and that he would contact the husband himself to address the situation At the end of the day, we provided every reasonable opportunity to have all of the claimant's issues resolved quickly, and with no out of pocket expense to herUnfortunately, being made whole was not what the claimant had in mindShe continues to defame our company with meritless accusations and continued fabricated allegationsWe are unsure of what else could reasonably be expected at this time

This client’s job was completed on 6/1/14. As with most of our clients, we assumed the work was done to their satisfaction, as they did not communicate any concerns until late December 2014. We provide a one year warranty on sink reglazing jobs. Sink reglazing jobs can and should
last longer, but people are generally much rougher on their sinks than they are on tubs, which we provide a year warranty for. We do leave care and maintenance instructions with customers, as well as specific guidance for not voiding the warranty The client advised that the job began to immediately fail. If this was the case, then the warranty would have been voided before they called with their original concern. The reason for this is that problems get exponentially worse if they aren’t addressed immediately. Specifically, if water, dirt, and cleaning materials are permitted to get below the surface of the product, for an extended period of time, it can cause the product to deteriorate at a faster rate than normal. This is the reason the warranty requires a communication within hours of the customer noticing any issues. Because we value our customers, and want to do anything feasible to keep them happy, we did complete a touch up project, free of charge, within a few days of their complaint, on 1/2/15. Again, at this time, the warranty was voided, but it was within a year of the project installation date, so we did what we could to make the client happyAgain, we assumed that the client was happy with our work, as they did not call again until 3/9/16. This is months after the original install date, and months after the touch up. Again, this is on a project that came with a one year warranty. At this time, the client advised that the touch up began to peel immediately. If this is this case, they voided their out of date warranty a second time by not calling us within hours of the time they noticed the defect We advised the customer that we could come out see the extent of the damage and see what needed to be done, but any work would have to be charged for. On 4/1/16, the client called back and advised that they were not interested hearing about the terms of warranty, and that if we didn’t agree to do additional work for free, that they would contact the Revdex.com. We advised the client that this was an unfair stance to an unreasonable standard that they were setting, but that they had every right to exercise this option It’s important to note that many of these types of defects result from a client not adhering to product care guidelines. As such, it is not reasonable to expect a warranty to extend beyond the originally agreed timeline, especially when multiple instances of neglect have already been admitted by the client

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/25) */
Bath & Kitchen Refinishing St. Louis, we live by the motto of "Quality is our first concern." On July 29, 2015, we completed a refinishing job for the complainant. Upon review of the work, the complainant paid the previously agreed upon...

amount. What we did not know at the time was that the complainant's husband is an HVAC professional, and created a home environment that had such an enormous vacuum effect, that it over powered our ventilators. In this manner, the home pulled the air from the bathroom in a way that over powered our ventilators that attempted to push the fumes out the window. Since this date, the ventilators have been tested and utilized daily, with no other issues. This is the first time since our company has been in business that this has ever happened.
The complainant's husband called 10 days after the work was completed. Immediately, he advised that he wanted to file a claim with our insurance company, without giving us the opportunity to assess any damages or otherwise see what had happened. We immediately set an appointment to meet at the complainant's home two days later, which was the complainants first availability.
When we arrived to the home, the complainant showed what had transpired. Upon review, we immediately took responsibility for what had happened. Also, during the visit, we had the opportunity to review our finished product and check on its quality: it appeared good. The complainant even advised on multiple occasions that she and her husband were happy with the work, but were (appropriately) upset about the damage. We advised the complainant that we could remove the residual coating from the surface of her possessions, which, at the time, she appeared to be comfortable with. We made immediate arrangements to arrive the next morning to resolve the matter. Early the next morning, the complainant's husband called and advised that he did not want us to resolve the matter, and said he only wanted us to file a claim with our insurance company. Though we felt strongly that we could resolve the issue, we filed our first claim ever with our insurance company.
It is important to recognize that we are fully insured, and that assertions made by the complainant that the damage was too extensive for our insurance company to cover are completely false. Because of the commercial work that we are associated with, we are required to carry a $1 million policy. Losses would not have approached this amount.
Upon receiving feedback from our insurance company, it was advised that the complainant, and her husband, had no intention of allowing anyone to remediate the issue, and that they insisted on a complete replacement of all items touched by the residual spray. They would not allow the insurance company to complete estimates or assess any opportunities that would allow the complainants possessions to be returned to their pre-existing state. In other words, our insurance company was willing to pay to have all items cleaned, but the complainant wanted everything to be completely replaced, without question. It was at this point that our insurance company advised the complainant that if this was their stance, they would need to look into filing a claim against their own home owners policy.
A few weeks later, the complainants husband left a voicemail with our office where he advised the adjustor for our insurance company told the complainant that the work we performed had not been done correctly and that he wanted his money back. When our quality control manager (an owner of the company) called the adjustor to see what the issue was, the adjustor adamantly denied making such an assertion, and went on to say he had been pressured by the complainant, during his visit to her home, to render such an opinion, but did not. He immediately called the complainant's husband to set the record straight.
On September 23, 2015, nearly two months after we completed our project for the complainant, which she had previously advised met her expectations, and after being advised by the insurance company that they had no intention of buying her all new home furnishings when they could return her items to pre-existing condition, she called our office with a series of complaints about our work product. When pressed for specifics about the complaints, she was unable or unwilling to do so. Because we wanted to get an idea of how long a repair would take, we requested that she take a couple of pictures so we could begin to troubleshoot, as most of her mentioned issues, would easily be seen in a texted picture. The complainant refused to comply with this request and asked to speak with a manager/owner. We agreed with the request and began to work out a time for the quality control manager, who is an owner, the person who completed the original job, and our subject matter expert, to go to the home and identify the cause of concern. The complainant quickly denied the request and advised that she wanted a visit from a different manager; in this case the person who is in charge of marketing and who has little to do with the daily operations. This made little sense, as such we did not comply with the request. It was apparent that the complainant was not interested in a solution of any kind, but only in compensation.
At this point, due to the disingenuous behavior, an unwillingness to be transparent with issues and motives on the part of the complainant, we requested that further communications be addressed via email so that there would be no confusion as to what was said or implied moving forward. We further advised we would be willing to make any fixes that fall under the scope of the warranty, but not before it was agreed upon in writing, that any work on the bathroom would be done only with all HVAC systems in the home turned off.
As previously stated, this is the first time we've ever had to file a claim, but did so in an attempt to make the complainant happy. We view every job as our calling card, and are disappointed that the project turned out the way it did. After we saw what happened, we did everything we reasonably could to satisfy the requests of the complainant. Unfortunately, if the complainant does not want the problem to be resolved, we can do no more than what we've done to drive a solution.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (1500, 7, 2015/09/25) */
> This is in reference to complaint in regards to Bath and Kitchen Refinishing.
>
I am not familiar with your process and was waiting for a response to my personal e-mail.
> I would like this reopened so we can respond because they have fabricated conversations and facts hat never happened! We will follow up with documentation from our insurance adjuster. However, we have attached pictures of the poor workmanship of Bath and Kitchen Refinishing.
>
> 1) "Ventilation over powered their exhaust". Anyone in their field should now that when they are spraying a harmful product in a house and should be knowledable to turn off the home heating and air conditioning system to avoid circulation of the harmful fumes.
>
> 2) "We were happy"; At first glance it looked adequate but there was some unequal lines they said they would return to repair. A few days later after our son took a shower he reported the edges were extremely rough/sandy to touch and some of the finish is pealing off. See picture below. It appears that the tub was not cleaned from debris due to the grit that is now present in the finished coating that has a rough surface to touch. Also, the paint job around the rim where the white inset meets the faux finish is not straight. See below.
>
> 3) As far as "waiting 10 days", the part of the house effected is not used much and therefoer was not discovered until cleaning the floor upstairs. We could feel the difference, smooth under rug and rough in exposed areas. Not really sure why this matters, the damage was done.
>
> 4) They claim they requested to clean and we refused. They are not a professional cleaning or restoration service and would not want them cleaning our fine furniture and oriental rugs, etc there are professional companies that provide these services and we dd not want to experience any more damages.
>
> 5) " We had no intention of remediating". False there insurance co sent Servo pro ([redacted] the owner phone #XXX-XXX-XXXX)) and attempted to clean the mirror with a product that the manufacture recommended and was unsuccessful at removing the epoxy and he said the items could not be cleaned. [redacted] from [redacted] repesenting B & K Refinishing came to our house to a look and realized the scope of damage and highly recommended we contact our insurance company. I NEVER said I wanted everything replaced or replacement value! [redacted] was suppose to send an estimate on structural damage, walls, floors, etc and never received this information or any communication from him or [redacted] since [redacted] visited our home. I contacted our insurance co right away and they are working with us. The insurance company is in the process of listing all the damage and what needs to be cleaned, refinished and replaced.
>
> 6) My husband did "call and complain about he workmanship on the tub and shower". The shower is chipping and the tub was described above (#2). There was never any conversation between my husband and their "quality control department". I contacted their office to let them know there is a problem with the coating and requested the owner call me. The secratary said that they would not address this until after the damage claim is completed and asked for all correspondence to be via e-mail.
>
> Their response is grossly inaccurate and many references to conversations that never happened. I just can not believe how a company can be so dishonest.
>
> Pure Ins is in the process of helping us determine what needs to be cleaned, refinished and replace. After we have completed this process we will file a complaint about the workmanship of Bath and Kitchen. The service was provided in July and it's now November. I have spent countless hours on this issue because of their incompitence.
>
> Please inform me on how to proceed.
>
> Thank you,
> [redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2015/12/01) */
The complainant advised that she provided pictures of poor workmanship. The first picture she provided was that of an impact mark on the bath tub that we refinished. An impact mark is when the surface is intentionally or unintentionally damaged by something striking the surface. These types of damaged areas are distinctly different from the chipping that she described. To confirm this assertion, we sent the photo to installation defect. This impact mark would have been visually obvious at the completion of the initial job, as well as when we came to review the complainant's initial concerns. Again, when we went to the complainant's home two weeks after the initial application, she advised that she was happy with the application itself. As this is an impact mark, and the surface damage was not present at the completion of the job, or two weeks later, we view this as customer neglect and not a product or installation defect. This would be the equivalent of having a wall painted and then blaming the painter for marks on the wall after you hit it with a blunt object.
The second picture was of an area that appears to be approximately 1/16 - 3/16 of an inch in size. Keep in mind that the application area for this particular product was on an entire tub surround. As we could not tell from the provided photo exactly what the damage was, we sent this picture the manufacturer as well. The possible conclusions were as follows:
1. The masking on the oval area was slightly "off" in this location. If this was the case, the area could be fixed in a relatively short period of time, if the opportunity were provided.
2. As the imperfection was not noticed at the end of the application, nor prior to the follow-up visit two weeks later, the area could have been damaged by the complainant, much in the same way the tub was damaged. The picture was inconclusive, so we would need to review the area in question to verify.
3. The caulk between the tub and the surround may have been smudged. Again, the photo was inconclusive, so this could not be concluded or ruled out.
If the tub has a sandy feel in a couple of areas, this can be easily fixed, and would take less than an hour to complete. We repeatedly offered to complete this repair for free, but the complainant was not interested and only wanted an owner to visit her home to provide a full refund. No photograph provided by the complainant showed any indication of peeling.
The complainant advised that "Anyone in their field should now that when they are spraying a harmful product in a house and should be knowledgeable to turn off the home heating and air conditioning system to avoid circulation of the harmful fumes." Unfortunately, this broad assertion is the voice of inexperience on the part of the complainant. She is ignoring the uniqueness of her home and the HVAC system she has installed. Over the past few years, we have routinely completed work at hospitals, hotels, apartment complexes, college dorms, and a variety of private residences. In doing so, we utilized the identical product and ventilation systems, and have never been called back to address a concern similar to that of the complainant's. Furthermore, we have never requested that an HVAC system be shut down on our behalf. It is simply not true that one should know to always turn the HVAC system off. To advise that we should have been cognizant of her unique situation is not reasonable.

The complainant asserted that she had a conversation with us regarding "unequal lines". Assertions like this are exactly why we requested that future correspondence with the complainant be in writing. No one with our company ever had a conversation with the complainant about unequal lines until after the complainant realized that our insurance company was not going to buy them all new furniture. A few days after receiving the estimate from the insurance company, the complainant called (nearly two months after the initial application) with a variety of new complaints and allegations, of which this was one. It was specifically at this instance that we requested all communications be in writing. We wanted to protect ourselves from future misunderstandings regarding conversations that never took place.
The good thing about involving outside parties is that they can validate assertions made by either party. As such, we took the liberty of calling [redacted] with Serve Pro. He advised that he in fact had completed harder jobs. Furthermore, he was familiar with acrylic urethanes (our product) and how to remove it from the impacted areas. He simply opted not to work with the complainant. He advised that the complainant created an uncomfortable work environment and attempted to get him to agree that certain surfaces had been impacted where he couldn't see or feel it (this is the same routine she had attempted with the insurance adjustor).
Subsequent to reading the complainant's most recent assertions regarding [redacted] from [redacted], we contacted our insurance company again to verify the complainant's claims. It was advised the complainant was provided a structural estimate on September 17, 2015. [redacted] advised that the complainant believed that she and her husband were entitled to more. As a result of the conversation, the complainant was advised to contact her own insurance company, so [redacted] could deal with them. The structural estimate was provided before the complainant made the complaint with the Revdex.com. This is in direct contradiction to her assertion that she never received the structural estimate or the notion that we were not fully insured which was alleged in her original complaint.

The complainant believes that we referenced a conversation between her husband and our quality control manager. We believe that she may have misunderstood our previously documented explanation. It was not asserted by us that the quality control manager called the complainant's husband. It was asserted that the husband left a message regarding a fabricated conversation between him and the insurance adjustor. In our previous statement, we advised that the insurance adjustor called the husband to confront him about his erroneous assertion. We did not call the husband back after the insurance adjustor advised what the reality of the situation was and that he would contact the husband himself to address the situation.
At the end of the day, we provided every reasonable opportunity to have all of the claimant's issues resolved quickly, and with no out of pocket expense to her. Unfortunately, being made whole was not what the claimant had in mind. She continues to defame our company with meritless accusations and continued fabricated allegations. We are unsure of what else could reasonably be expected at this time.