CRN Institute

I am in receipt of the above reference Complaint, in which Complainant alleges BELFOR caused damage to his personal property, cracked his counter top, did not adequately remove rubbish from the premises, and left holes in his drywallBELFOR USA Group,Inc(“BELFOR”) appreciates the opportunity to respond to these allegations.Our records indicate that on 5/2/a water loss event occurred at Complainant’s residence (“Property”)On 5/6/16, BELFOR was notified of the event and requested to do a site inspection and estimateOn 5/10/16, BELFOR employee [redacted] T [redacted] performed site inspections and compiled an estimate for the [redacted] Adjuster, which was submitted for review on 5/13/16.Condition of home at site inspection:On 5/23/16,Complainant endorsed the emergency service contract, authorizing BELFOR to mitigate the water damage.Beginning on or about 5/23/and thereafter, BELFOR employees arrived at the Property, performed mitigation cleanup and structural drying to the water affected areas of the kitchen, hallway, living room and bathroomThis mitigation process included removal of carpet, vinyl,drywall and baseboard for the purpose of dry out and decontaminationBELFOR’s scope of work did not include repairs of any kind.Condition at mitigation:On 5/24/16, BELFOR’s crews set up containment, cut and removed drywall,wiped stud framing using an anti-microbial, and cleaned up debris.On 5/26/16, BELFOR’s Quality Assurance coordinator called and left a message requesting a call backThe following day, Complainant returned the call and stated there were no concerns or issues, but he wanted to know when technicians would be returning to the PropertyBELFOR referred him to his Project Manager, [redacted] ***.Regarding Complaint’s concerns with the rubbish on site, trash bags were staged outside and collected out of the way of any foot traffic,then removed from the premises daily.To date, BELFOR has not received any complaints from neighbors or tenants of the complex regarding cleanliness or staging inconvenienceOur phone number is listed clearly on our vehicles and no rubbish was left in the parking lot by our crew.Regarding Complainant’s concerns with the removal of drywall, this is part of the standard protocol per the IICRC Sin dealing with water damage contaminatesThe approved estimate, a copy of which is attached, has drywall removal listed on lines 5, 13, & The assertion that the insurance company was not informed of this scope of work is inaccurateRemoval of drywall was included in BELFOR’s scope of workReplacement of the drywall removed during mitigation is part of the reconstruction phase scope of work, which BELFOR has not been contracted to perform It is Complainant’s responsibility to contract with an alternate contractor to complete the reconstruction scope of work,as approved by Complainant’s insurer.On 6/1/,BELFOR received a text from Complainant stating he was very upset with the work Belfor didThe areas of concern were carpet tack strips left at the sliding door and drywall screws left in stud framing behind containment plasticBELFOR’s Mitigation Manager, Baillard M***, went to the Property on 5/31/to remove the tack strips in front of the sliding door and also remove drywall screws.On 6/1/16,Baillard, ***, and [redacted] went to the Property to complete finishing touches and remove equipmentAt this time Complainant alleged that Belfor broke a lamp, dishes,and his counter topAfter reviewing with our technician, BELFOR determined that no dishes we damaged in the process of mitigationComplainant was present during work and made no mention of any damaged good until this pointHowever, the lamp had preexisting damage and Complainant asked our crew to dispose of itThe damage on the counter top was also pre-existingThis information was communicated to Complainant, and then he endorsed BELFOR’s Certificate of Satisfaction document, verifying completion of our mitigation services, a copy of which is attached.On 6/8/16, ***spoke to Complainant, who indicated he was upset because BELFOR declined moving forward with the reconstruction phase of this projectThe approved insurance proceeds were $less than BELFOR’s estimate for the scope of work, and accordingly, Belfor communicated to the Adjuster and Complainant that we would not be able to perform the full scope of work for the amount allotted by insurance company At that point,Complainant threatened to call the Revdex.com and take legal action against BELFOR Complainant then ceased communications with BELFOR, despite several attempts to contact him.In closing, BELFOR performed dry out mitigation services per the [redacted] approved EstimateComplainant himselfcertified that our services were completed to his satisfaction when he endorsed BELFOR’s Certificate of SatisfactionBELFOR will not be issuing credits for items with preexisting damage or for drywall repair that is a covered expense by his insurance company.Currently there is an outstanding balance for $4,on record which will need to be satisfied in fullPlease contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: While most of what they say is true, I disagree with their contention that I called Belfor on 3/1/to request remediation [redacted] called Belfor and requested remediation [redacted] represented the HOA's management company and apparently authorized the work because I never didBelfor then contacted me to get permission to access the house and discuss their plans with meI presumed that since the HOA's sprinkle caused the damage as determined by the Belfor crew, and [redacted] arranged for the remediation that the invoice would go to the the HOA, the responsible partyI agree that Belfor was patient in trying to get me to pay for the damage that was caused by the HOA but they repeatedly refused my request for them to send the invoice to the HOA and requested paymentFurthermore they should have told the HOA that if they didn't pay the bill that they would not provide remediation services to the that HOA in the futureI requested that the HOA pay for the damage and they refused and essentially challenged me to sue themI have filed a complaint in small claims court and have asked the court to subpoena the Belfor General Manager if a trial is heldTurning the bill over to a harassing collection agency who threatened to ruin my credit and the central Belfor's threat to sue me in small claims court without ever asking the responsible party ( [redacted] HOA) to pay for the damage that they caused was not a fair or reasonable action to take I am pleased with the amicable tone of Belfor's response and hope that my small claims suit will force my HOA to pay Belfor for the damage remediation that they causedIt would be good if Belfor also invoiced the HOA and sent me a copy of that noticeI too hope that Belfor and I can settle this matter amicably Sincerely, [redacted]

February 22,
*** ***
*** ** *** **
*** ** ***
Re: Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”) Complaint ID: ***
The following is BELFOR USA Group Inc.’s (“BELFOR”) response to the above listed Revdex.com complaint filed by Mr***
on 1/25/
Our records reflect that on 3/1/2014, Mr*** initiated an emergency service telephone request to BELFOR concerning water damage affecting his unit located at *** ** *** *** *** ** (“Property”). Beginning on or about 3/1/ and thereafter, BELFOR employees arrived at the Property, performed mitigation cleanup and structural drying to the water affected areas of the guest room and hallway.
On 5/23/2014, BELFOR’s invoice was mailed to Mr*** (see attached Invoice), however, we received the returned Invoice on 6/4/On 6/23/2014, a forwarding address was requested. The Invoice was then emailed to Mr*** on 6/23/
On 6/28/14, Mr*** emailed BELFOR’s invoice to his management company (see attached Email)Of note, Mr*** acknowledged that he was referred to BELFOR
In January, May and November 2015, BELFOR continued its collection efforts with Mr***. During BELFOR’s telephone calls with Mr*** in November 2015, he continued to state a refusal to paycouple of phone calls with Mr*** in November 2015, Mr*** continued to refuse to pay
On 2/8/Mr*** contacted BELFOR both telephonically and via email and threatened to file a lawsuit
BELFOR has been very patient in trying to collect this outstanding balance with Mr***. We welcome your suggestions on how to reach an amicable resolution with Mr***
Sincerely,
Jeremy S***
***

Do you have any documentation from Ms*** or *** *** which shows they contacted Belfor to do the remediation work and/or authorized the work?No, this was all done by phone She contacted Belfor and asked them to call me. You sent *** and Ms*** an email dated 6/28/ Please provide me with a copy of their response.See attached file *** Please provide me with a copy of your letter to the HOA’s Board, which requests that they pay Belfor’s invoice, and a copy of their refusal letter.See above for their first responsesee *** for recent request for AOAO to pay for damages See second response under ***. Lastly, you state that you filed a claim in small claims court Who is the claim against?Against ** *** AOAO

I am in receipt of the above reference Complaint, in which Complainant alleges BELFOR caused damage to his personal property, cracked his counter top, did not adequately remove rubbish from the premises, and left holes in his drywall. BELFOR USA Group,Inc. (“BELFOR”) appreciates the opportunity to...

respond to these allegations.Our records indicate that on 5/2/16 a water loss event occurred at Complainant’s residence (“Property”). On 5/6/16, BELFOR was notified of the event and requested to do a site inspection and estimate. On 5/10/16, BELFOR employee [redacted] T** performed site inspections and compiled an estimate for the [redacted] Adjuster, which was submitted for review on 5/13/16.Condition of home at site inspection:On 5/23/16,Complainant endorsed the emergency service contract, authorizing BELFOR to mitigate the water damage.Beginning on or about 5/23/16 and thereafter, BELFOR employees arrived at the Property, performed mitigation cleanup and structural drying to the water affected areas of the kitchen, hallway, living room and bathroom. This mitigation process included removal of carpet, vinyl,drywall and baseboard for the purpose of dry out and decontamination. BELFOR’s scope of work did not include repairs of any kind.Condition at mitigation:On 5/24/16, BELFOR’s crews set up containment, cut and removed drywall,wiped stud framing using an anti-microbial, and cleaned up debris.On 5/26/16, BELFOR’s Quality Assurance coordinator called and left a message requesting a call back. The following day, Complainant returned the call and stated there were no concerns or issues, but he wanted to know when technicians would be returning to the Property. BELFOR referred him to his Project Manager,[redacted].Regarding Complaint’s concerns with the rubbish on site, trash bags were staged outside and collected out of the way of any foot traffic,then removed from the premises daily.To date, BELFOR has not received any complaints from neighbors or tenants of the complex regarding cleanliness or staging inconvenience. Our phone number is listed clearly on our vehicles and no rubbish was left in the parking lot by our crew.Regarding Complainant’s concerns with the removal of drywall, this is part of the standard protocol per the IICRC S500 in dealing with water damage contaminates. The approved estimate, a copy of which is attached, has drywall removal listed on lines 5, 13, 17 & 24. The assertion that the insurance company was not informed of this scope of work is inaccurate. Removal of drywall was included in BELFOR’s scope of work. Replacement of the drywall removed during mitigation is part of the reconstruction phase scope of work, which BELFOR has not been contracted to perform.  It is Complainant’s responsibility to contract with an alternate contractor to complete the reconstruction scope of work,as approved by Complainant’s insurer.On 6/1/16 ,BELFOR received a text from Complainant stating he was very upset with the work Belfor did. The areas of concern were carpet tack strips left at the sliding door and drywall screws left in stud framing behind containment plastic. BELFOR’s Mitigation Manager, Baillard M[redacted], went to the   Property on 5/31/16 to remove the tack strips in front of the sliding door and also remove drywall screws.On 6/1/16,Baillard, [redacted], and [redacted] went to the Property to complete finishing touches and remove equipment. At this time Complainant alleged that Belfor broke a lamp, dishes,and his counter top. After reviewing with our technician, BELFOR determined that no dishes we damaged in the process of mitigation. Complainant was present during work and made no mention of any damaged good until this point. However, the lamp had preexisting damage and Complainant asked our crew to dispose of it. The damage on the counter top was also pre-existing. This information was communicated to Complainant, and then he endorsed BELFOR’s Certificate of Satisfaction document, verifying completion of our mitigation services, a copy of which is attached.On 6/8/16, [redacted]spoke to Complainant, who indicated he was upset because BELFOR declined moving forward with the reconstruction phase of this project. The approved insurance proceeds were $3000.00 less than BELFOR’s estimate for the scope of work, and accordingly, Belfor communicated to the Adjuster and Complainant that we would not be able to perform the full scope of work for the amount allotted by insurance company.  At that point,Complainant threatened to call the Revdex.com and take legal action against BELFOR.  Complainant then ceased communications with BELFOR, despite several attempts to contact him.In closing, BELFOR performed dry out mitigation services per the [redacted] approved Estimate. Complainant himselfcertified that our services were completed to his satisfaction when he endorsed BELFOR’s Certificate of Satisfaction. BELFOR will not be issuing credits for items with preexisting damage or for drywall repair that is a covered expense by his insurance company.Currently there is an outstanding balance for $4,459.41 on record which will need to be satisfied in full. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
While most of what they say is true, I disagree with their contention that I called Belfor on 3/1/14 to request remediation. [redacted] called Belfor and requested remediation. [redacted] represented the HOA's management company and apparently authorized the work because I never did. Belfor then contacted me to get permission to access the house and discuss their plans with me. I presumed that since the HOA's sprinkle caused the damage as determined by the Belfor crew, and [redacted] arranged for the remediation that the invoice would go to the the HOA, the responsible party. I agree that Belfor was patient in trying to get me to pay for the damage that was caused by the HOA but they repeatedly refused my request for them to send the invoice to the HOA and requested payment. Furthermore they should have told the HOA that if they didn't pay the bill that they would not provide remediation services to the that HOA in the future. I requested that the HOA pay for the damage and they refused and essentially challenged me to sue them. I have filed a complaint in small claims court and have asked the court to subpoena the Belfor General Manager if a trial is held. Turning the bill over to a harassing collection agency who threatened to ruin my credit and the central Belfor's threat to sue me in small claims court without ever asking the responsible party ([redacted] HOA) to pay for the damage that they caused was not a fair or reasonable action to take.
I am pleased with the amicable tone of Belfor's response and hope that my small claims suit will force my HOA to pay Belfor for the damage remediation that they caused. It would be good if Belfor also invoiced the HOA and sent me a copy of that notice. I too hope that Belfor and I can settle this matter amicably.
Sincerely,
[redacted]