DWB Restoration II, Inc.

The accusations of statements being made and perjuring under oath is completely inaccurate. Ms*** was advised of the situation with the key
The accusation of double-billing is innaccurate. While we did charge the insurance carrier for the handling of the items at her house, we did not charge them for transportation to our facility, storage at our facility, or the cleaning of the items, which was done after *** *** was declining any responsibility. We have tried to work with Ms***, but she will not cooperate
Document *** *** has that is being referred to in the prior correspondence pertains to our storage, cleaning, and handling of the property brought to our facility. The document was an estimate of what the cleaning charges may be, not an evaluation of her property value. Any value that I would have given would have been supplied by Ms***. We have not been compensated for anything regarding these services
We have decided to give her the liability carriers name, and will do so in a private e-mail
If Ms*** wants to be present for testing of the container, it would need to be done during business hours

To Whom This Concerns:
*** ** ** *** ** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** ** ** *** ***
I have reviewed the consumer's recent response to the above referenced complaint , and do feel that there are some misrepresentations to the issues that caused the mold to form in her basement months after our drying process was completed, and the communication between the consumer and our company
In the consumer response, it states that *** was informed that our owner was in meetings, when he was out of town during some of the phone calls placed to our company in request to speak with him. I have spoke with my Office Manager, *** ***, and *** has assured me that *** informed Ms*** that he was out of town in those conversations
When the I (*** ***) spoke with Ms*** on the phone, I had already reviewed the issues at her house with our employees that were involved in the services, and reviewed documentation, as well. Ms***'s initial conversation with me was an ultimatum for us to pay an amount that was approximately $10,or *** would be sending to her attorney. I did consult our owner about the situation, and we were in agreement that the services rendered by our company had nothing to do with the current situation at her home. I did make the promised return call to Ms***, and informed her that we did not feel the situation was due to the drying process completed months prior. *** told me that *** was turning over the ***er over to her attorney. I acknowledged that we would wait to hear from her attorney, and we could give him/her our attorney's information
Emergency Services - As mentioned in the prior response, we collect the emergency services direct from many carriers, and it is a fairly common practice in the industry.
Documentation - Our documentation is based on the readings taken from Ms***'s house at the time services were rendered. In the recent response, it has been mentioned that there have been some companies *** read about producing documentation. This is NOT the case with our company, nor will it ever be the case.
As mentioned in my prior response, we have worked hard to build a solid reputation of integrity and feel this complaint is beginning to become a deliberate action to tarnish and/or defamate our company's reputation. We are a company that is willing to go the extra mile to provide superior service to our customers and clients. The only next logical step would be for her to proceed with legal action. We feel our documentation will firmly support our case, and the ***er can be resolved
Respectfully,
*** ***
General Manager
DWB Restoration

The customer understood that we would send our roofer when he was available and he has not yet been available and it has been weeks. The inspection where the customer was told "he didn't see anything" is a common outcome of a leak inspection when there's nothing to physically see at
the surface The roofer would be sent to fix the problem "the inspector didn't see" as he would remove shingles and dig deeper to expose the underlying issue. Customer understood warranty was expired and offered to pay for the service however is not satisfied with how long it will take us to get there. They should contact another roofing company and inquire which roofing company can meet there needs in regards to time. Most or many local companies it seems are 2+ weeks out as are we

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** * *** *** ***
To whom this concerns:
I am writing this e-mail in response to complaint:
*** filed by *** *** *** against DWB Restoration, and would like to note that complaints against our company are rare. We hold an A rating with the Revdex.com, and have worked hard to build our credibility and honesty within our industry. Ms***’s complaint has been read, and we do take any complaints very seriously. However, we do believe there are some facts being misrepresented, missing, or may need clarification
Following Proper IICRC Procedures: In the complaint, it is mentioned that we did not follow proper procedures for responding to a clean water (Category 1) loss within the first hrs of loss. I do agree with Ms*** that typically when responding to this type of loss, it may not be necessary to perform as much demolition as we performed at her house. However, the basement had paneling, which was warped badly and it did not make sense to leave in place to be dried. Paneling is stalled in ***ets and cannot be repaired like drywall. We do have photo documentation to support. It made sense to remove the paneling during demolition because it would eventually have to be removed for repairs and removing all saturated materials would only aid in the drying process
IICRC Certification: Our Company is an IICRC Certified firm. All of our estimators and lead technicians are fully certified with the IICRC. A certified tech in on-hand during mitigation and monitoring
Moisture Meters and Hygrometer: It was suggested that we used sub-standard moisture equipment. All of our moisture reading equipment is bought through Bridgepoint of Louisville, which is a large supplier of industry equipment. While not all meters look the same or may not have all the same functions, using a penetrating meter is proof with pins inserted into the material being tested and locating heightened levels, that moisture is present.
Method of Payment: In the work authorization, Ms*** signed, there is a clause stating that we do bill the insurance company direct for emergency services, and we do collect those payment direct from many insurance companies
Excessive costs and removal: Any items removed during the mitigation process, would have had to have been removed for repairs eventually. Paneling was damaged beyond repair and to remove the items during the mitigation services actually saves an insurance company money because they are not paying a General Contractor 20% Overhead and Profit to do it later. While every single piece of paneling may not be bagged( if it comes out in a full ***et, for example), smaller pieces are bagged, and crew must sweep and bag all debris
Units Explanation: We use an industry standard software called Xactimate, which gives out a region specific pricelist every month. All categories (Drywall, Paint, Roofing, etc…) and action items ( Remove paneling, equipment rental, paint walls, etc..) may have different units of measurement. For the mitigation items, equipment is charged by days of use per piece, remove paneling by square ft, etc… When we enter the dimensions of a room into the estimating software we can use variables within the program, such as “W” for walls, and the software can calculate based on the dimensions entered into the estimating software
Mold Development: As stated by Ms*** in her complaint, our equipment was removed from the dwelling on May 6th. *** reintroduced moisture/treatment chemicals to framework of the basement in the form of anti-microbials and bleach solution after our equipment was pulled off the premises. The basement was walked-thru on the 21st, and showed no signs of mold, then was covered days later when the painter’s arrived. We tested the Relative Humidity(RH) in the basement, and the tests were registering in the high 70’s with an average temp of about degrees. These are ideal conditions for mold growth, according to the psychrometric readings that were taken during drying. We do have photos to document these readings
Access was available through the rear entrance of the dwelling for monitoring during the drying process The RH levels were tested throughout, and they were around 27-30% at the completion of drying
The development of the mold can be explained by the heightened RH levels we detected months after pulling our drying equipment, when the RH levels were well below the acceptable threshold. The RH levels were high due to either the reintroduction of water to the premises, or poor air circulation. The furnace, which was in the basement closet, did not have an air return hooked up at the time of mold development, so the air could not properly circulate, causing heightened moisture in the drywall, and causing the surface mold that developed on the drywall. Water in the basement was about inches deep. The areas ft of the ground where heightened moisture was detected, never had moisture at the time of loss, when our drying process was performed
DWB was authorized and contracted by Ms*** to perform emergency services, including removal of wet non-salvageable materials, and drying process. We have documentation of the drying process, and feel that the cause for mold development is something resulting from poor air circulation. We billed and were paid according to the agreed pricelist we have with the insurance company. Our services were rendered properly, and we do not feel that the cause of the mold months after we were released from the job has anything to do with our services rendered. We do have documentation to support, if it is required. If it were due to our drying process the mold would have formed long before the timeframe of months given by Ms***. Please contact us if any further action is needed for the Revdex.com
Respectfully,
*** *** ***
DWB Restoration
General Manager
* * *** *** * * *** *** * * *** *** ***

In respone to the recent messageI respectfully submit the following:
My story has not changed about the keys or access being available to the unit. My technicians were standing there when I told her it was the only key we had to that lock. Ms*** told me that the lockbox was being removed. At that point, we were under the impression that we had no access. Whether she did remove it or not, I can't confirm. It would make sense that it was put back for contractors to enter the house because she was displaced during her repairs.
We do have liability insurance and are registered with the city. We are trying to get the proper testing done, so we can see with whom the blame actually rests.
A claim was filed with **, but we can not proceed with anything further until testing is done to unit off-site, which was explained to Ms*** several times
I have not been able to collect or observe any water leaking into the unit throughout the heavy Spring rains and *** from the Winter. We will not be able to confirm until testing is done

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I received an email from *** *** with the carrier name He provided no name for his agent, no phone number and no policy number so that I could contact them I have emailed him telling him it is incomplete information and requested AGAIN that he provide contact information for his liability carrier
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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
[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted]? I am very upset at the fact that they can respond to this Revdex.com Claim, however they cannot pick up the phone to give us any informationThe leak is getting worseweeks is a long time when you have water leaking in your home! The roof is only years old; they need to fix the problem!!!!

The customer understood that we would send our roofer when he was available and he has not yet been available and it has been weeks.? The inspection where the customer was told "he didn't see anything"? is a common outcome of a leak inspection when there's nothing to physically see at
the surface? The roofer would be sent to fix the problem "the inspector didn't see" as he would remove shingles and dig deeper to expose the underlying issue.? Customer understood warranty was expired and offered to pay for the service however is not satisfied with how long it will take us to get there.? They should contact another roofing company and inquire which roofing company can meet there needs in regards to time.? Most or many local companies it seems are 2+ weeks out as are we? ?

I have reviewed the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted], and there are some misrepresentations in her story.  I will address them in the order they were read in the complaint.
Ms. [redacted] had a bad experience with her first contractor, and we were called on a Sunday to come empty her possessioins...

out of prior contractor's unit because he was going to have it picked up with her belongings still inside.  We did empty the unit, had another unit set, and moved personal property into the [redacted] unit.  When property was moved from the initial unit it did have strong pet odors, dirt, hair, etc...
Access to unit - Ms. [redacted] was advised at the beginning that we only had one key for the lock on the unit.  When we were told that she would be contracting repairs on her own, she stated that she was going to remove the lockbox.  Lockbox may have been reinstalled later for her contractors to have access, but we were not advised when it was reinstalled.
Regular Access by Ms. [redacted] - Upon my visit with the [redacted](**) General Manager([redacted]), Ms. [redacted] said that she did not open the container with any regularity, which should have been done every couple weeks.  She left the property in the unit for 8 months (March-November), which is over the course of many changes in temperature and humidity.  Her story changed 3 times while we were standing in her driveway talking to her.
Cleaning/Storage/Returning Property - We did take what was approved by Ms. [redacted] to our office, it was cleaned at no charge to her insurance carrier or anyone else except our company.  We did this as a courtesy to assist in the situation.  We would gladly return her property that has already been cleaned if she would give us a time during normal business hours.
Replacement Prices -  Ms. [redacted] supplied replacement prices for her possessions.  She claimed that a 19 yr old sofa was worth 2000-2500 dollars to replace, among other property.
Condition of Property - Personal property was in poor condition from the beginning of our involvement.  There is a strong odor of cat on her couch.  House was poorly kept and had an overwhelming odor as well, which may have contributed to the odor in her furniture.  Her furniture was also dirty when pulled from the initial unit.  We do not know what damage may have been due to the initial contractor.
Terms and Conditions - The fax sent to us by ** did not have the terms and conditions on it that are being referenced.
Leak Testing - Ms. [redacted] has been advised that for us to have the unit properly tested that it will need to be taken to ** facility and pressure tested.  She has refused to allow us to do so.  Instead, I set pans under the possible leaking areas, and they set through many weather events including: ice/snow, flooding rains, and long periods of continued rain.  When the pans have been observed after thes events, there was no moisture found inside the pans.  Couch was dry also.  Proper leak testing can not be done until she allows us to remove the unit.
We have tried to assist throughout this process and will continue to do so, but we do need the cooperation of Ms. [redacted] to have the unit tested.  Ms. [redacted] states that she would like to help us get the situation resolved, but she is unwilling to cooperate with unit testing.  We do wish to resolve the situation.
Respectfully, 
[redacted] - DWB Restoration

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
[redacted]
Regards,
[redacted] I am very upset at the fact that they can respond to this Revdex.com Claim, however they cannot pick up the phone to give us any information. The leak is getting worse...2 weeks is a long time when you have water leaking in your home! The roof is only 6 years old; they need to fix the problem!!!!

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
Regards,
[redacted]
 
 
 I also have DWB's photos as well as my own and those taken by the mold remediation company, and copies of emails sent to and from the adjusters, as well as DWB. Also, after each conversation with DWB, I sent a recap of the conversation to the adjuster, as well as making him aware of my dissatisfaction. On August 6th, I spoke per phone with [redacted] at the[redacted] Insurance Corporate office regarding my dissatisfaction with the whole process, On August 7th, 2014, Mr. [redacted]. who identified himself as the officer over the adjusters, from the insurance corporate office called me and we discussed the events of the water damage claim. He stated the payment for DWB services, should have come to me and been made to myself and DWB. I explained that I had tried to work with DWB but had met resistance and I felt the standards had not been followed and also expressed concern regarding the billing and payment for services that had not been provided. He asked me what [redacted] could do? I responded with a request to make sure their policy holders knew they had a choice on who would be providing services in their homes, a review of their check issuing policy, and perhaps some sensitivity training for employees dealing with distraught, frustrated seniors. I will say that all DWB employees were polite and professional on the phone. However, the owner stated he had been out of town each time I called, not in a meeting as I was told. My last conversation with the owner was for an update on my perspective, as I had asked had his employees not been keeping him updated, However, he asked for my take, which I once again reviewed. I had the mold remediation beginning the next day(which was a Friday) and he asked that I postpone that date, until he had time to review and discuss with his employees and would get back with me on the following Monday. I agreed and ask that he call before noon. He asked if I would allow their company to do the mold remediation, and my response was a negative. That I did not have faith, nor trust in his company at that particular time. He had not called back on Monday by about two pm. So I called, and was transferred to Mr. [redacted], who identified himself as operation manager. He asked what amount it would take to make me happy, and I gave him an amount. He, in return, stated he would call me back shortly, after he discussed with the owner the situation(again) He did in fact, call back shortly, and stated that I seemed to have a plan, and to have my lawyer call their lawyer. And that was that. I did gather all my information and see a local attorney. He reported that I would win, but then remembered that he thought his new [redacted] worked for DWB. He called her, in my presence, and of course [redacted] had been at my property. The only woman I saw at the property was the one who brought the fans,etc. I described her to the attorney, who stated that wasn't the description he knew her by, but that [redacted] had said [redacted] had been there, so he had to decline due to a conflict of interest. This situation just kept getting better and better. Thus, I decided to forget the legal process, file a complaint with Revdex.com. and move on. If my conversations with DWB were recorded, I was not made aware of that. [redacted] always answered and transferred my call. [redacted] did however, get friendlier when I started asking for forms, that [redacted] appeared to have not heard of, such as the scope readings. In regard to the supervision and proper training of their employees, I would like to see the documentation of the training and of the supervision. The entire paneling in the basement was not warped, and I still do not agree with the necessity of total removal. Paneling [redacted]ets can be cut, replaced, and seams covered. I know it can be done, as have seen it on other projects. When the job is performed correctly, it is acceptable and cosmetically pleasing. The paneling there at the time was going to be painted if possible, prior to the water damage or possibly covered with a drywall process. The seaming process would have been fine and less expensive. It seems to me removing and paying for partial [redacted]ets would be less expense to the insurance company rather than a total tear out. Also, the [redacted]er of the billing and payment for things that were not done, other than the bagging, was not addressed. The word, fraud comes to mind,and in my career, which involved billing insurance companies, I would have never wanted that term even possibly connected to the company I represented, in any way,shape, or form. Please explain the, what I consider, improper billing, on my claim. Also, why was the black formation on the bathroom paneling, that I reported to your trained employee, who indicated he did not speak English, not addressed. Was that information not passed on or at least observed, when the supervision was being done? It is my understanding, at that point, the area should have been cleared, and the water remediation should have become mold remediation. There is a picture of that area in the pictures I was sent from your company on my file. By not doing so, my health, as well as everyone else that was involved, was compromised. Evacuating the area immediately should have been a call made by your trained employees. When the mold remediation people came, no one was allowed in the area until a negative reading by an independent company was confirmed by lab testing from the outside of the home as well as inside the home. Your company has some explaining to do, and your justifications are not acceptable. I have considered notifying the EPA, due to the mold exposure. as I required doctor visits three times and at this moment am having respiratory problems that may possibly be related to mold exposure of such magnitude. I would like a full answer and explanation to the concerns I have expressed. Please do not choose the ones you wish to elaborate on, but answer all the issues I have addressed. If you would like to speak to the mold remediation company to affirm my information, he told me early on, that he would be glad to address what he found, with whomever. I will be looking forward to your explanations and reasoning. As far as the direct payment to the company, I signed the paper a few days after the process was started. I never received a copy of the form with both our signatures on it. The comments regarding the placement and monitoring of the equipment for dry out also was not addressed. As well as the fact that I was not given a form for release of their services when they had pulled out their equipment and gave me no instruction or information of their plans as demonstrated with them sending men to work on the water line, without my knowledge. At no time, did we have a meeting to discuss future plans after the dry out. I should have been included in that process, at the very least. I still do not agree with their readings during the dry out process and would like to see proof that those readings (the three readings on the single [redacted]et of paper, and the graph readings were actually performed DURING the process. I'm sorry, but companies that I have read about, have actually made up and documented information after the fact, when it was requested. When I emailed the adjuster about him producing those readings, picutures, etc. He stated he did not receive that type of info, and I would need to request that from DWB.(I have a copy of that email). It seems odd that an adjuster approves the bill and pays the bill from a provide that the company has sent, without reviewing all information. Please address the charges to the insurance company for items that were not done and again how it was felt, it was just better to do what was thought best, rather than follow the standards of your business. I know there are no regulations for water removal, but there are for mold. According to information I read and learned from a representative from the attorney general's office, water removal regulations are something that will be coming in the future. I am not satisfied with your response. Mold grows from moisture when the conditions are right. Moisture comes from an inadequate dry out. The fact that there was not any education or materials provided is also another [redacted]er. The mold remediation company that I was fortunate to have done business with, that I may add again, was paid at my own expense, as well as the second tear down, was reputable and professional. I was aware from the very beginning what the plan was, how long it would take, who would be in my home and when. If there was a delay, I was notified as well if there were going to be a change in the employee coming that day. I was given names as well as what type vehicle arriving. As far as the air return, it was in place and met the code for the space. My HVAC owner is reputable and well known in this community. The mold remediation company employee and owner, who worked along side his employees, and inspected daily along with a report to me each day, has told me he would be glad to discuss with whomever, the standards a reputable company should follow. There are other water remediation companies that actually have the steps they follow which are actually on their web site. Their process follows the standards(of which I have a copy) to the letter. It is also not common standard for an insurance company to issue a check from a policy holder's claim, directly to the company providing the service. Do not forget, it is my claim on my policy on my property from my insurance company. Unfortunately, I had the recent experience of having the need to file another claim with the same insurance company that sent DWB. on my residence, due to hail damage. It is interesting to note, that when the contracted person came to check the damage, he made it very clear that I had a choice in what company I wanted to repair the damage and when I received his estimate, there was a cover [redacted]et, that again explained the right of choice. I did not see such with DWB's computer generated estimate.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
Regards,
[redacted]
 
I am not satisfied with DWB's response and had expected more from the Revdex.com than they are able to provide. I do not wish to continue this back and forth banter with no hope for resolution. I have represented my opinions with personal observation and research. I really had hoped this [redacted]er could be settled. Legal action will involve the insurance company, adjusters, as well as DWB. I wish to discontinue the Revdex.com process and will continue with an attorney that has experience in the area of water and mold remediation.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
Mr. [redacted] again has made a false statement.  If he has techs willing to say they were present when they locked that unit and he told me there was only one key they will be perjuring themselves in court.  They packed that unit on a week day when I was working.  He NEVER co**unicated with me about the key  until I sent him a message in writing wanting to know where a key was to get into the unit ( I have that co**unication saved).  At no time during that co**unication did he say it was the only key.  I never told him the Lock box was off the door if he maintains that then he needs to show the documentation of that co**unications in writing.  I did not removed it until I moved back in the house the end of August 2014.I have a copy of the invoice he filed with [redacted] and it has some things  billed that my insurance company had already paid him for and on that invoice he documents there are damaged items.He stood in my driveway the day the Police were here and stated the damages was due to condensation and he was not responsible.  He again refused to provide the name of his liability insurance carrier.  I have a copy of the actual contract he signed with [redacted].  Contracts says he was supposed to inspect the unit, he signed that he was responsible for any loss or damage to the contents, he signed that he was to carry insurance on the contents.  The contract mentions condensation in the fine print.  I have spoken to [redacted] and they have a clause in that contract that He signed estimating the value of the contents and it was ridiculously low at 2560.00. I have  photos of how the unit was packed as well as the condition of the damaged items  DWB should have known those vents needed to be kept unblocked.I find it interesting that the other complaint filed against this company with Revdex.com had to go through Revdex.com also to get the name of their liability carrier.   Shows to me a pattern of not providing the required information.Since [redacted] has changed his story so many times and now he says it has to be water tested to determine who is responsible is he willing to go on the record and say if it is not a leak that caused the damage and determined to be condensation that he is taking responsibility?  [redacted] maintains that it is condensation due to inappropriate packing of the unit by DWB.When I was at their facility to go through the items we made a list of the damaged items that needed to be replaced.  I made a compromise and said some of the wood items with damaged finishes they could have professionally painted rather then replaced.  I have the email where he told [redacted] what I was asking to be repaired and replaced was no unreasonableI am still requesting the name of DWB's liability carrier before the unit can have the remaining items removed (some which [redacted] says can be saved by having mold remediation) the sofa sleeper will have to be disposed of as it is not salvageable. Then the unit can be picked up by [redacted] on a day I can be present.  I would also like to be present for the testing of the unitAs far as I am concerned, I have no contract with [redacted].  My agreement was with DWB and they accepted payment from my Insurance carrier for services they have not completed.  I hold DWB responsible if they provided a defective unit that leaked or if they did not store the contents appropriately to prevent condensation.   The clear resolution is for DWB to provided their liability carrier information.Consumers should not have to involve the Revdex.com or Attorneys to obtain the documentation for liability insurance for a contractor, it certainly makes one consider that they may not have had insurance. Regards,
[redacted]