Sign in

Century Environmental Hygiene

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Century Environmental Hygiene? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Century Environmental Hygiene

Century Environmental Hygiene Reviews (3)

f [redacted] ‘Dear Revdex.com of Northern Colorado: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this invalid complaint and I apologize for taking this long to prepare the response The response has been delayed because this is the third time I have had to take my very limited available time away from legitimate customer needs to respond to the vague and inappropriate remarks made by the ***s The essence of the ***'s allegation is that, after consulting with other "experts," they believe that there are numerous errors in the report and that it "grossly understates" the amount of meth in the house As they have not provided any specific example, e.g., "Table Line 3," with an explanation of how they believe this was incorrect, the vague allegation that there is an error is not actionable by Revdex.com In other words, I don’t think Revdex.com can give us a rating change if the claim is unproven and the ***s have offered no proof Conversely, I can document that the calculations are all correct There are three parts to the calculated meth result: the sample area, the lab result, and the final result If you look at the result for the first sample in the data table in Appendix A, it states: "Sample Number [redacted] cm^2Lab reported ug in the sampleFinal result was ug/cm^One basically calculates this by dividing the lab result of by "2" because there are "2" cm^areas in a cm^area This calculation is so simple that most people can do it in their head divided by = ??? One can easily peruse the table and check all the other calculations, which I have done for the third time now, and see that all of the calculations are correct If the ***s can actually find a specific calculation that is in error, they might want to try a legitimate communication showing as such I am tracking my time to respond to these allegations and unless the ***s actually find an error, I intend to invoice them and take them to court to get paid I first request that they rescind their Revdex.com complaint, unless they have a real basis that they haven’t shared yet If the ***s had provided me with a concern with an actual basis before trying to get their money back, I would have been happy to explain why the report says what it does and this could all have been avoided Instead, they call a lawyer as the first action He obviously told them that they had no case as after he got my reply, they dropped the legal matter Now they are wasting more of my time and your time and it needs to stop now I am amused by the statement that they got advice from other meth experts Apparently their expert can't divide by to check the numbers As far as the "other drug test" sample goes, I have completed my task for which we were contracted with the ***s I offered to get some additional regulatory opinion for her beyond what I am contracted for, and spent some time doing that Now that the ***s may wish to get more information from the state, I would not be willing to provide more free additional service, and would not be willing to perform any more paid service for the ***s In any event, they have all the information in their hands that I have, and could contact the state health department on their own without the help of a consultant In summary, since there is no error in the PA report, there is no need for a revision to be prepared, and there is no basis for a refund For that matter, every meth report that I have prepared that has been reviewed by a health agency has been approved Indeed, if the ***s wish to prove their case about errors, they can simply submit my report to the state or county health agency and ask for a review and if any errors are reported, I will be happy to make corrections Or if as I expect the county will agree that my findings are correct, the ***s can take that as a relief that there never was a problem in the first place [redacted] Administrative AssistantDescription: CEH logo.JPG Century Environmental Hygiene, LLC [redacted] [redacted] This e-mail transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosureAny review, dissemination or use of this transmission or any of its contents by persons other than the addressee is strictly prohibited

Complaint: ***
Dear Revdex.com of Northern Colorado,Thank you for providing the most recent update regarding the complaint that we filed against Century Environmental Hygiene (CEH) on 6/4/14.I will not respond directly to the unprofessional and slanderous statements made by CEH in their complaint response dated 2/19/ I do not believe that anything can be resolved with such behavior. However, I will address some of the specific concerns raised by CEH in their response. Additional documentation and evidence is available upon request by Revdex.com, but is not attached due to the nature of the documents and personal information contained within. I am rejecting this response because:Below are specific statements made by CEH in their complaint response dated 2/19/15, followed by my response to each of those statements: CEH Statement: “In other words, I don’t think Revdex.com can give us a rating change if the claim is unproven and the ***s have offered no proof.” Response: We provided CEH with proof of the statements contained in our Revdex.com complaint on several occasions prior to filing our complaint with Revdex.com of Northern Colorado on 6/4/14. As the Revdex.com complaint process requests that personally identifiable information not be submitted, our initial complaint did not contain attachments, contracts, etc. If such documentation is required by the Revdex.com, please notify us of such, and we can provide the Revdex.com with the required documentation.2. CEH Statement: “Conversely, I can document that the calculations are all correct. There are three parts to the calculated meth result: the sample area, the lab result, and the final result. If you look at the result for the first sample in the data table in Appendix A, it states:
‘Sample Number *** cm^2 Lab reported ug in the sample Final result was ug/cm^2.’ ?One basically calculates this by dividing the lab result of by “2” because there are “2” cm^areas in a cm^area…One can easily peruse the table and check all the other calculations, which I have done for the third time now, and see that all of the calculations are correct. If the ***s can actually find a specific calculation that is in error, they might want to try a legitimate communication showing as such." ?Response: I do not dispute the calculation method illustrated above for Sample Number ***, based solely on the information that CEH has provided to the Revdex.com. My concern is related to the inaccuracy of the underlying data used in the above computation.?The above referenced sample was a discrete sample (contained a single sample location) taken from the “Basement, furnace, fan box compartment” (photo verification can be provided upon request). Sample Number *** was identified on Appendix A, as referenced by CEH in their response, and was attached to the Preliminary Assessment Report dated 12/15/13. On Page of that report, “Part Sampling Procedures”, Mr*** stated the following “Samples were collected from non-porous surfaces by marking an area of cm^with a pre-cut template.” ?Based on Mr***’s own statement in the body of his report dated 12/15/13, the sample area for a discrete sample (single sample location), including Sample Number ***, was cm^2. Therefore, the cm^sample area reported by CEH in Appendix A, and used in the calculation above is incorrect, which resulted in an incorrect final result and underreported levels of methamphetamine contamination. Recognizing that the sample area for Sample Number *** was cm^2, as opposed to the cm^that CEH incorrectly identified in Appendix A and in their above example, the calculation of the final result was even easier than described by CEH above. ?Correct calculation - based directly on Mr***’s statement regarding sample size contained in the body of the Preliminary Assessment: Sample Number *** cm^2 Lab reported ug in the sample Final result should be ug/cm^2.?No calculation was even required in order to determine the final result. I raised concerns regarding the above issue with Mr*** and CEH on several occasions, and tried repeatedly to engage in further communication with them, but were unsuccessful. Those attempts were described in further detail in our initial Revdex.com complaint submitted on 6/4/14. 3. CEH Statement: “I am tracking my time to respond to these allegations and unless the ***s actually find an error, I intend to invoice them and take them to court to get paid. I first request that they rescind their Revdex.com complaint, unless they have a real basis that they haven’t shared yet.”?Response: Threatening customers who exercise their consumer protection rights, including the right to submit a complaint to the Revdex.com following a disagreement or dissatisfaction with a Company or product, is unprofessional and abusive. As a dissatisfied customer of CEH, I submitted a valid complaint that I can support and am legally entitled to submit to the Revdex.com. The above is not the first time that CEH has threatened to initiate legal action against us for raising concerns regarding the quality, accuracy and completeness of the product and service provided and their failure to fulfill contractual obligations. ?There is no reason for our Revdex.com complaint to be rescinded. That complaint addressed concerns about the quality of the service, accuracy and completeness of documents provided, inappropriate communication by CEH, etc. It included details of inappropriate and unprofessional communication from CEH, as well as difficulty obtaining replies from CEH. I request that the Revdex.com consider CEH’s failure to respond to Revdex.com correspondence for more than months, and the inappropriate content contained in CEH’s response dated 2/19/15, as further supporting evidence of our initial complaint against CEH.?4. CEH Statement: “If the ***s had provided me with a concern with an actual basis before trying to get their money back, I would have been happy to explain why the report says what it does and this could all have been avoided. Instead, they call a lawyer as the first action. He obviously told them that they had no case as after he got my reply, they dropped the legal matter. Now they are wasting more of my time and your time and it needs to stop now.”?Response: The Revdex.com complaint that we submitted on 6/14/contains a detailed timeline and explanation of the numerous attempts that we made to discuss the concerns with CEH and Mr*** prior to sending a formal demand letter. I will not restate that information in this response. If the Revdex.com requires documentation to substantiate any of the communication attempts, it can be provided upon Revdex.com request?We remain entitled to pursue litigation and legal action against CEH and Mr***. We voluntarily elected to submit a Revdex.com complaint and engage in the Revdex.com dispute resolution process before pursuing formal legal action against CEH, as most reasonable individuals and businesses agree, is a much more cost- and time-effective approach to resolve disagreements and disputes for all parties involved. ?As the Revdex.com is a consumer protection agency, we were justified in filing our complaint with the Revdex.com on 6/4/and intend to respond fully and professionally to all correspondence received from the Revdex.com. ?CEH Statement: “As far as the “other drug test” sample goes, I have completed my task for which we were contracted with the ***s. I offered to get some additional regulatory opinion for her beyond what I am contracted for, and spent some time doing that. Now that the ***s may wish to get more information from the state, I would not be willing to provide more free additional service and would not be willing to perform any more paid service for the ***s. In any event, they have all the information in their hands that I have, and could contact the state health department on their own without the help of a consultant.”?Response: On 12/12/13, based on Mr***’s professional advice, we agreed to pay CEH an additional fee of $816.77, to submit the “other drug test” sample to a specialty lab for broad scan drug analysis, along with interpretation and reporting of the findings to us. Had we been provided accurate levels of methamphetamine contamination within the home and correlating necessary remediation, we would have had no need to incur this addition cost and delay for further testing. We have not received the final (amended) PA report, which was a contractual promise, and which was necessary for us to move forward in the remediation process. ?CEH Statement: “In summary, since there is no error in the PA report, there is no need for a revision to be prepared, and there is no basis for a refund For that matter, every meth report that I have prepared that has been reviewed by a health agency has been approved Indeed, if the ***s wish to prove their case about errors, they can simply submit my report to the state or county health agency and ask for a review and if any errors are reported, I will be happy to make corrections Or if as I expect the county will agree that my findings are correct, the ***s can take that as a relief that there never was a problem in the first place.”?Response: As described in #above, there are errors contained within the Preliminary Assessment report. The calculation errors only illustrate one of the types of errors that have been identified in the provided CEH reportFurther, we were notified of the results of the “other drug test” (broad scan drug screen sample) on 1/16/14, which revealed methamphetamine contamination above the State-determined "clean-up" level. On 1/24/14, Mr*** wrote in an email to us, "Please let me know if you would like me to ask the county/state if the ALS meth result [“other drug test”] can be mentioned but not considered to be indicative of a compliance issue." We responded and requested that Mr*** follon the issue, as offered. On 2/15/14, Mr*** contacted *** ***, an Environmental Protection Specialist at the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, seeking guidance regarding treatment of the broad scan drug sample which revealed higher levels of methamphetamine than was identified in the samples taken as part of the methamphetamine preliminary assessment. On 2/18/14, Ms*** responded and informed Mr*** that she was in no position to render an opinion on the matter, as she had not reviewed all of the facts in the case. On 2/24/14, we emailed Mr*** and asked for a status update on the amended preliminary assessment report, based on the additional sample result and response from Ms***. We also left several voicemails with Mr*** and Ms*** over the course of the following weeks, requesting an update on the status of the amended preliminary assessment report. No response to our requests was received. ?7. CEH complaint response was signed by: “*** *** Administrative Assistant”Response: I have never spoken with or heard of Ms***. I only raise this issue as a concern because the CEH complaint response dated 2/19/was written in the first person point of view. As I have never engaged in any communication with Ms***, I find no basis for her to personally make such statements. If the statements were made by Mr***, or another CEH employee, and then submitted to the Revdex.com by Ms***, this should be properly indicated in the Revdex.com records
Regards,
*** ***

f[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
 
‘Dear Revdex.com of Northern Colorado:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this...

invalid complaint and I apologize for taking this long to prepare the response.  The response has been delayed because this is the third time I have had to take my very limited available time away from legitimate customer needs to respond to the vague and inappropriate remarks made by the [redacted]s.  The essence of the [redacted]'s allegation is that, after consulting with other "experts," they believe that there are numerous errors in the report and that it "grossly understates" the amount of meth in the house.  As they have not provided any specific example, e.g., "Table Line 3," with an explanation of how they believe this was incorrect, the vague allegation that there is an error is not actionable by Revdex.com.  In other words, I don’t think Revdex.com can give us a rating change if the claim is unproven and the [redacted]s have offered no proof.  Conversely, I can document that the calculations are all correct.  There are three parts to the calculated meth result: the sample area, the lab result, and the final result.  If you look at the result for the first sample in the data table in Appendix A, it states:  "Sample Number [redacted]200 cm^2Lab reported 0.26 ug in the sampleFinal result was 0.13 ug/100 cm^2. One basically calculates this by dividing the lab result of 0.26 by "2" because there are "2" 100 cm^2 areas in a 200 cm^2 area.  This calculation is so simple that most people can do it in their head.  26 divided by 2 = ??? One can easily peruse the table and check all the other calculations, which I have done for the third time now, and see that all of the calculations are correct.  If the [redacted]s can actually find a specific calculation that is in error, they might want to try a legitimate communication showing as such.  I am tracking my time to respond to these allegations and unless the [redacted]s actually find an error, I intend to invoice them and take them to court to get paid.  I first request that they rescind their Revdex.com complaint, unless they have a real basis that they haven’t shared yet.  If the [redacted]s had provided me with a concern with an actual basis before trying to get their money back, I would have been happy to explain why the report says what it does and this could all have been avoided.  Instead, they call a lawyer as the first action.  He obviously told them that they had no case as after he got my reply, they dropped the legal matter.  Now they are wasting more of my time and your time and it needs to stop now.  I am amused by the statement that they got advice from other meth experts.  Apparently their expert can't divide 26 by 2 to check the numbers.  As far as the "other drug test" sample goes, I have completed my task for which we were contracted with the [redacted]s.  I offered to get some additional regulatory opinion for her beyond what I am contracted for, and spent some time doing that.  Now that the [redacted]s may wish to get more information from the state, I would not be willing to provide more free additional service, and would not be willing to perform any more paid service for the [redacted]s.  In any event, they have all the information in their hands that I have, and could contact the state health department on their own without the help of a consultant.  In summary, since there is no error in the PA report, there is no need for a revision to be prepared, and there is no basis for a refund.  For that matter, every meth report that I have prepared that has been reviewed by a health agency has been approved.  Indeed, if the [redacted]s wish to prove their case about errors, they can simply submit my report to the state or county health agency and ask for a review and if any errors are reported, I will be happy to make corrections.  Or if as I expect the county will agree that my findings are correct, the [redacted]s can take that as a relief that there never was a problem in the first place. [redacted]Administrative AssistantDescription: CEH logo.JPG Century Environmental Hygiene, LLC[redacted]  [redacted] This e-mail transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or any of its contents by persons other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.

Check fields!

Write a review of Century Environmental Hygiene

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Century Environmental Hygiene Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 3201 E Mulberry St Unit C, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States, 80524-8475

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Century Environmental Hygiene.



Add contact information for Century Environmental Hygiene

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated