Capital Construction Services, Inc.

Sorry for the delay in responseEmails where directed into my junk emailThank you for the follow up phone call today which altered me to the matter in questionI have called and talked with *** *** today and discussed his concerns with our contract, we have a part contract approved by
The *** *** ** *** ***Attached is the copy of the contracts in questionDue to an agreed scope of work and a agreed estimate between the contractor and the insurance company there is normally a delay between the initial meeting with the homeowner and the agreed estimateWe have a service agreement per the initial visit followed by an Addendum A which makes the contract completeThe estimated completion date is stated on the Service Agreement and the payment schedule in outlined on Addendum AWe can not start a job prior to an agreed price. Unfortunately this is irrelevant, due to our time constraints in starting the job with other work flow already scheduled for repair*** *** chose to use another means to have his structure repairedWe did not enforce so contract'sWe were sorry to lose *** *** business. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns,Best Regards,*** ***

Capital Construction Services reached out to Revdex.com to respond to this caseThe business reached out to the customer at the time the customer brought up the concerns with the water ringsThe business discovered there is water under the home's slab and that is the water coming up under the floors
causing the discolorationThe business's work did not impact the slab and the business's testing of the spots show an elevated moisture readingThe spot is not near any pipes that could be leaking at the time

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.When the floor installer from Capital came out to inspect the imperfection in the floor; he wasn't sure what was causing the issue. Now in the complaint it's called water rings. He took a picture of the problem area in my floor and used some type of device that sits on top of the engineered wood flooring to determine readings underneath. The company didn't go into depth to determine the underlying issue, however, an open ended email was sent from Jeff W[redacted] with no intentions to further investigate the matter. The only test performed was on the top surface of the floor which literally took five minutes. Please help me to understand how can you make a discovery without going into depth about the issue? The problem area wasn't removed to determine anything underneath. That action was performed later by another professional company I hired. Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Another piece of evidence that Capital Construction is not aware of & I have in my possession is a letter from the adjuster dated 4/24/2014 on [redacted] letterhead.  I received it with the check that I forwarded to Capital Construction. This letter shows that it was my efforts,  not Capital Construction as the author of the response claimed that changed the mitigation.  In it [redacted] wrote "Thank you for your efforts on this mitigation component- getting the charges from the middle 50 ' s to the upper 30's."  I can fax a copy to the Revdex.com if needed but I didn't attach it because it has identify information including my name, address & policy number.  [redacted] heard my plight to get this corrected because the call was on speaker the entire time. Lastly,  once I receive the requested letter from the company that arrived when I was speaking to [redacted] on the phone,  I can forward that as well.  I'm hopeful that Capital Construction ' s knowing now that I wasn't the only person present during these calls & I have written documentation of my role from [redacted] in this process will prompt them to show some accountability for what they tried to do. I also hope that there will be some communication & training on ethical business practices & a push for the company to show integrity even when they are wrong.  Clearly,  those communicating with the author of the response didn't share all the details because they were unaware that others were present & heard it & about this letter.
Regards,
[redacted]

Please accept this as Capital Construction's response to Revdex.com Case number [redacted]. On April 22,2014 Capital Construction received a phone call from [redacted] in which the customer informed Capital of her complaints. In response, [redacted] met with [redacted] on her...

property in an attempt to resolve the complaints presented. [redacted] insurance adjuster was present and the three parties proceeded to go over the estimate provided and scope of work. Following is a breakdown of events that transpired before, during, and after that meeting.
At the end of the meeting, [redacted] and [redacted] were in agreement with the scope of work completed and the changes to be made to the mitigation estimate. Capital Construction was under the impression that all complaints, issues, and concerns had been resolved to all parties' satisfaction. Since this meeting, Capital has received multiple threats by customer to report the company to several institutions, including the [redacted], Attorney General Office, [redacted], and upon others if her requests are denied. One such request demands a full refund.
Capital Construction continues to remain under the conviction that all reasonable efforts were made to appease [redacted] and that Capital Construction has continued to perform to and above the Revdex.com standards of business practices and customer service.
Here follows the response to the letter received by the Revdex.com:
1. Capital Construction did respond to an emergency water damage at [redacted] home to perform water mitigation on April 10th
2. [redacted] made it clear in the initial days of the emergency service that she had no intentions on using Capital Construction to do the repairs. Per her request the repairs assignment was canceled by [redacted] for the repairing the structure. Capital Construction was employed to complete the emergency mitigation work.
3. On April 16th, [redacted], whom handled the water mitigation, did leave a message updating [redacted]. The message left was that the drying process was complete, with the exception the duct work in the crawlspace.
4. In response to the above referenced message, [redacted] informed Capital Construction that she wished to not have the duct cleaning completed at her property. Per her request the duct work cleaning was never performed. When Capital first arrived on scene on April 10 20l4 ,wet insulation was removed from the metal duct work. Per Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certified Standard [redacted] , duct cleaning was recommended per industry standard and agreed upon with the adjuster, due to water infiltration in the customer's duct system. However, this work was never performed due to [redacted] request and subsequently never invoiced.
5. [redacted] did let [redacted] know that her insurance adjuster would provide her with the mitigation estimate for the mitigation, once the insurance company was satisfied with scope of work. During an emergency process the mitigation company is not aware of how long it will take a structure to dry. It is not until the moisture readings are back within normal tolerance levels that the drying process can be completed and the final estimates finalized and agreed upon with the insurance company.
6. Capital never invoiced the insurance company or [redacted] on or prior to April 17,2014. In fact,the insurance company did not approve the estimate until after the meeting held on April 22, 2014; upon this approval the final invoice for work completed was submitted. Please provide Capital Construction with a copy of invoice dated prior to April 22,2014,reflecting charges for work not performed.
In addition to the responses to the complaint filed above, the following are additional steps that were taken in order to resolve the customer's dissatisfaction:
1. As noted above, [redacted] informed Capital on Tuesday, April 22,2014 of her dissatisfaction via a telephone call into Capital Construction's office. In response, [redacted] visited [redacted] in person in order to address the complaint and find a resolution.
2. During this meeting on April 22,2014, [redacted] and [redacted] went over the estimate line item by line item. During this process complaints were made and changes were made to appease the customer. In addition to the removal of the duct cleaning, [redacted] provided a photo of equipment not running while on her property.
Even though Capital Construction only charged for equipment used, in an effort to ensure the highest level of customer satisfaction Capital further reduced the equipment charges.
3. Again, Capital was under the impression that all complaints and concerns had been resolved at this meeting, with the customer stating her agreement with the changes to be made. Since that day, the customer has filed the current complaint with the Revdex.com, as well as forwarding payment from [redacted].
Please contact me at [redacted] if you have any questions or concerns, or if you feel that this information is in error. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Capital Construction Services, Inc

Review: After water damage was successfully mitigated, no work was placed in a project management schedule for 8 days. Company failed to correctly fill out and fairly represent a "contract" with us. Matter of fact, they did not know how to correctly fill out a contract for services. Then never placed the terms of the agreement in the contract, nor any start dates or payment schedules to be associated with completions of progression of work.Desired Settlement: I would like them to negotiate a new completed contract with dates of start, draw dates progress, and completion date for construction services and not have a Force Majeure clause as a delay tactic which avoids time accountability.

Business

Response:

Sorry for the delay in response. Emails where directed into my junk email. Thank you for the follow up phone call today which altered me to the matter in question. I have called and talked with [redacted] today and discussed his concerns with our contract, we have a 2 part contract approved by The [redacted]. Attached is the copy of the contracts in question. Due to an agreed scope of work and a agreed estimate between the contractor and the insurance company there is normally a delay between the initial meeting with the homeowner and the agreed estimate. We have a service agreement per the initial visit followed by an Addendum A which makes the contract complete. The estimated completion date is stated on the Service Agreement and the payment schedule in outlined on Addendum A. We can not start a job prior to an agreed price. Unfortunately this is irrelevant, due to our time constraints in starting the job with other work flow already scheduled for repair. [redacted] chose to use another means to have his structure repaired. We did not enforce so contract's. We were sorry to lose [redacted] business. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns,Best Regards,[redacted]

Review: April l0th, Capital construction was dispatched to my home to take care of mitigation due to water damage. I told [redacted] that I did not want the company to do the repairs and I would need an estimate if they wanted to do so since I would be picking my own contractor. On April 16, [redacted] left me a message that they were done and all they had to do was the work Under my house. I told him I didn't want them to do that. I would get someone to do it and if they wanted to do it I need an estimate. I also asked him for a copy of the mitigation and he refused to give it to me. He also stated we don't give estimates, you give us a copy of your adjusters report and we'd go by that. I told him without an estimate they can't do the repairs so I'll get someone else. After that conversation, on the 17th he billed my insurance company stating they did the work. I emailed my Adjuster and ask for the report and when I read it, I found out, they also billed for other items they did not complete and equipment that just sat in my house. I had taken pictures over the 5 days. It was almost 2000 worth of stuff. I got the report on Tuesday & called, and no one will talk to me until I said I was going to report them. [redacted] gave me a new bill & I mailed the check but feel they deserve nothing. This was despicable.Desired Settlement: I want a written apology, a 0.00 bill and refund of 3,943.18 for the stress and anguish, for my time to get & review the mitigation and discovering their attempt to use my disaster for unearned profit.

Business

Response:

Please accept this as Capital Construction's response to Revdex.com Case number [redacted]. On April 22,2014 Capital Construction received a phone call from [redacted] in which the customer informed Capital of her complaints. In response, [redacted] met with [redacted] on her property in an attempt to resolve the complaints presented. [redacted] insurance adjuster was present and the three parties proceeded to go over the estimate provided and scope of work. Following is a breakdown of events that transpired before, during, and after that meeting.

At the end of the meeting, [redacted] and [redacted] were in agreement with the scope of work completed and the changes to be made to the mitigation estimate. Capital Construction was under the impression that all complaints, issues, and concerns had been resolved to all parties' satisfaction. Since this meeting, Capital has received multiple threats by customer to report the company to several institutions, including the [redacted], Attorney General Office, [redacted], and upon others if her requests are denied. One such request demands a full refund.

Capital Construction continues to remain under the conviction that all reasonable efforts were made to appease [redacted] and that Capital Construction has continued to perform to and above the Revdex.com standards of business practices and customer service.

Here follows the response to the letter received by the Revdex.com:

1. Capital Construction did respond to an emergency water damage at [redacted] home to perform water mitigation on April 10th

2. [redacted] made it clear in the initial days of the emergency service that she had no intentions on using Capital Construction to do the repairs. Per her request the repairs assignment was canceled by [redacted] for the repairing the structure. Capital Construction was employed to complete the emergency mitigation work.

3. On April 16th, [redacted], whom handled the water mitigation, did leave a message updating [redacted]. The message left was that the drying process was complete, with the exception the duct work in the crawlspace.

4. In response to the above referenced message, [redacted] informed Capital Construction that she wished to not have the duct cleaning completed at her property. Per her request the duct work cleaning was never performed. When Capital first arrived on scene on April 10 20l4 ,wet insulation was removed from the metal duct work. Per Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and Restoration Certified Standard [redacted] , duct cleaning was recommended per industry standard and agreed upon with the adjuster, due to water infiltration in the customer's duct system. However, this work was never performed due to [redacted] request and subsequently never invoiced.

5. [redacted] did let [redacted] know that her insurance adjuster would provide her with the mitigation estimate for the mitigation, once the insurance company was satisfied with scope of work. During an emergency process the mitigation company is not aware of how long it will take a structure to dry. It is not until the moisture readings are back within normal tolerance levels that the drying process can be completed and the final estimates finalized and agreed upon with the insurance company.

6. Capital never invoiced the insurance company or [redacted] on or prior to April 17,2014. In fact,the insurance company did not approve the estimate until after the meeting held on April 22, 2014; upon this approval the final invoice for work completed was submitted. Please provide Capital Construction with a copy of invoice dated prior to April 22,2014,reflecting charges for work not performed.

In addition to the responses to the complaint filed above, the following are additional steps that were taken in order to resolve the customer's dissatisfaction:

1. As noted above, [redacted] informed Capital on Tuesday, April 22,2014 of her dissatisfaction via a telephone call into Capital Construction's office. In response, [redacted] visited [redacted] in person in order to address the complaint and find a resolution.

2. During this meeting on April 22,2014, [redacted] and [redacted] went over the estimate line item by line item. During this process complaints were made and changes were made to appease the customer. In addition to the removal of the duct cleaning, [redacted] provided a photo of equipment not running while on her property.

Even though Capital Construction only charged for equipment used, in an effort to ensure the highest level of customer satisfaction Capital further reduced the equipment charges.

3. Again, Capital was under the impression that all complaints and concerns had been resolved at this meeting, with the customer stating her agreement with the changes to be made. Since that day, the customer has filed the current complaint with the Revdex.com, as well as forwarding payment from [redacted].

Please contact me at [redacted] if you have any questions or concerns, or if you feel that this information is in error. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Capital Construction Services, Inc

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Another piece of evidence that Capital Construction is not aware of & I have in my possession is a letter from the adjuster dated 4/24/2014 on [redacted] letterhead. I received it with the check that I forwarded to Capital Construction. This letter shows that it was my efforts, not Capital Construction as the author of the response claimed that changed the mitigation. In it [redacted] wrote "Thank you for your efforts on this mitigation component- getting the charges from the middle 50 ' s to the upper 30's." I can fax a copy to the Revdex.com if needed but I didn't attach it because it has identify information including my name, address & policy number. [redacted] heard my plight to get this corrected because the call was on speaker the entire time. Lastly, once I receive the requested letter from the company that arrived when I was speaking to [redacted] on the phone, I can forward that as well. I'm hopeful that Capital Construction ' s knowing now that I wasn't the only person present during these calls & I have written documentation of my role from [redacted] in this process will prompt them to show some accountability for what they tried to do. I also hope that there will be some communication & training on ethical business practices & a push for the company to show integrity even when they are wrong. Clearly, those communicating with the author of the response didn't share all the details because they were unaware that others were present & heard it & about this letter.

Regards,