Coastal Maintenance & Plumbing LLC

I am writing this response to a concern, made by [redacted] on February 23, 2016, involving the installation of a hoodWhen approached by Ms [redacted] she informed us to use an existing vent, as she did not want new penetrations to her roofWhen inspecting the attic, it was found that the bathroom exhaust fans were vented into the attic and not through the roofHowever, there was a roof vent installedAs per her request, our employee installed the hood into the attic where it could vent though the above mentioned roof vent She hired another company to check out dust from her furnace and it was found by them that the hood vent needed to be installed through the roofMs [redacted] then called our service number and asked for our Insurance informationWe offered to send a cleaning crew to clean it up, which she refused and access to correct installation was denied by Ms [redacted] She claimed the house was full of insulation debrisOur insurance adjuster and a restoration agent took samples of the airThe tests came back with no detection of any such fiberglass but was in fact just dustInsurance claim was deniedHowever, we still tried to work with herWe offered a 3rd party to reconnect the pipe through the roof and to also hire a cleaning company for her entire home As far as securing a permit, she was informed that it is a Homeowner’s responsibility and it was not included in the priceAfter learning she did not buy the permit, we purchased one on her behalf (for twice the original permit fee) and still have not been compensatedShe did, however, call an inspection on our permit, knowing the vent had disconnected from roof terminationAfter the inspector saw that, she requested that he fine us and that we are refusing to finish the workWe have also sent an email to building codes of Seaside, so they were aware of the situation The materials used for the duct is standard and is used by all heating companies unless requested otherwiseConsidering this is an exhaust fan, it poses no fire hazard In conclusion, we feel we have given many options to remedy Ms [redacted] ’s concerns and this has now become irreconcilable issue as she is refusing to respond to our legal advisory team by phone or email

I am writing this response to a concern, made by [redacted] on February 23, 2016, involving the installation of a hood. When approached by Ms. [redacted] she informed us to use an existing vent, as she did not want new penetrations to her roof. When inspecting the attic, it was found that the...

bathroom exhaust fans were vented into the attic and not through the roof. However, there was a roof vent installed. As per her request, our employee installed the hood into the attic where it could vent though the above mentioned roof vent. 
 
She hired another company to check out dust from her furnace and it was found by them that the hood vent needed to be installed through the roof. Ms. [redacted] then called our service number and asked for our Insurance information. We offered to send a cleaning crew to clean it up, which she refused and access to correct installation was denied by Ms. [redacted]. She claimed the house was full of insulation debris. Our insurance adjuster and a restoration agent took samples of the air. The tests came back with no detection of any such fiberglass but was in fact just dust. Insurance claim was denied. However, we still tried to work with her. We offered a 3rd party to reconnect the pipe through the roof and to also hire a cleaning company for her entire home. 
 
As far as securing a permit, she was informed that it is a Homeowner’s responsibility and it was not included in the price. After learning she did not buy the permit, we purchased one on her behalf (for twice the original permit fee) and still have not been compensated. She did, however, call an inspection on our permit, knowing the vent had disconnected from roof termination. After the inspector saw that, she requested that he fine us and that we are refusing to finish the work. We have also sent an email to building codes of Seaside, so they were aware of the situation.
 
The materials used for the duct is standard and is used by all heating companies unless requested otherwise. Considering this is an exhaust fan, it poses no fire hazard.
 
In conclusion, we feel we have given many options to remedy Ms. [redacted]’s concerns and this has now become irreconcilable issue as she is refusing to respond to our legal advisory team by phone or email.

Complaint: [redacted]
March 23, 2016
 
Dear Revdex.com:
I submitted my complaint and CMP, Coastal Maintenance&Plumbing LLC, responded with an inaccurate and false description of the situation. I defend the true facts below:
- At the beginning I requested, above my stove, the installation of a new Hood with the duct going through and out the roof. I definitely asked if a permit was required and Jerard and his employee stated “no”. I am a Landlord and property manager of real estate so this was a definite confirmation established by me. There was an existing hood in place that blew into the kitchen with no duct penetrating through the cabinet or ceiling which I asked to eliminate and install a code approved new duct and cutting through the roof for ventilation to escape.
On 9/27/15, I first used the Hood ventilation for cooking. That night the interior was devastated with a cover of filaments waking me up due to lack of oxygen. A fog of sparkles. I had grit like particles in my eyes, lungs, throat, etc. which I had explained numerous times in prior communications. I had to physically pick out the cemented material accumulated inside my plugged nostrils in order to breathe. This led to infection inside from removal. Urgent Care claimed I could have died by slow suffocation. Casey Eye Institute flushed my eyes. My dog had a hacking cough. On 11/18/15, my dog died due to lungs gradually filled with fluid and minimum $5,000 Vet bill investment.(documents upon request)
I, and my guests/family, have lived in the house since 2008 without any incidents like this one. It was created after I first turned on the Hood ventilation they improperly installed. The duct was left lying on its side inside the crawlspace, open ended and no roof outlet.
There were no “legitimate” air samples taken/tested by the adjuster, and their friend, to claim no detection of any fiberglass. I was present at the time to testify. However, Professional insulation companies have  proven there is “ fiberglass existing” among the particles spread throughout the interior.
My last resort was contacting the City Inspector to witness the work done without a permit. The inspector stated a penalty/fine is due from them for this type of work. I emailed CMP of the code violation. They immediately got a permit and penalized for not following code. Inspector compiled a violation report on CMP doing work without a permit  along with improper installation and improper (fire hazzard)materials of the duct.  Inspector’s standards allow one excused violation (this one) on the record for all contractors, but next time it will be a stronger penalty. This is a documented statement.
In conclusion, due to denial, distortion of facts and refusal to rectify the situation with me, I find them not credible to redo the duct/Hood installation. However, I repeatedly request they cover expenses for cleaning out the contaminated interior and everything engulfed with filaments which are unhealthy to breathe and cause long term health problems. It cannot be just wiped down. The particles become airborne and float everywhere. In attempting to be of help, I provided a company name experienced in cleaning this type of case. 
 
[redacted]  
Additional accumulated costs are rising and may be provided upon request:
Medical bills, travel costs back and forth from Portland, lodging to attend city mtgs, testing, loss of use and maintenance costs, etc. *