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 provideI do not wish to continue this back and forth banter with no hope for resolutionI have represented my opinions with personal observation and researchI really had hoped this ***er could be settledLegal action will involve the insurance company, adjusters, as well as DWBI wish to discontinue the Revdex.com process and will continue with an attorney that has experience in the area of water and mold remediation
I have reviewed the complaint filed by Ms***, 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 months (March-November), which is over the course of many changes in temperature and humidity Her story changed 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 business hours Replacement Prices - Ms [redacted] supplied replacement prices for her possessions She claimed that a yr old sofa was worth 2000-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 [redacted] 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 [redacted] 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 Mr [redacted] again has made a 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 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 salvageableThen 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 insuranceRegards, [redacted] ***
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 DWBAlso, after each conversation with DWB, I sent a recap of the conversation to the adjuster, as well as making him aware of my dissatisfactionOn 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 claimHe stated the payment for DWB services, should have come to me and been made to myself and DWBI 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 providedHe 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 seniorsI will say that all DWB employees were polite and professional on the phoneHowever, the owner stated he had been out of town each time I called, not in a meeting as I was toldMy 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 reviewedI 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 MondayI agreed and ask that he call before noonHe asked if I would allow their company to do the mold remediation, and my response was a negativeThat I did not have faith, nor trust in his company at that particular timeHe had not called back on Monday by about two pmSo I called, and was transferred to Mr [redacted] , who identified himself as operation managerHe asked what amount it would take to make me happy, and I gave him an amountHe, 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 lawyerAnd that was thatI did gather all my information and see a local attorneyHe reported that I would win, but then remembered that he thought his new [redacted] worked for DWBHe called her, in my presence, and of course [redacted] had been at my propertyThe only woman I saw at the property was the one who brought the fans,etcI 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 interestThis situation just kept getting better and betterThus, I decided to forget the legal process, file a complaint with Revdex.comand move onIf 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 readingsIn regard to the supervision and proper training of their employees, I would like to see the documentation of the training and of the supervisionThe entire paneling in the basement was not warped, and I still do not agree with the necessity of total removalPaneling ***ets can be cut, replaced, and seams coveredI know it can be done, as have seen it on other projectsWhen the job is performed correctly, it is acceptable and cosmetically pleasingThe paneling there at the time was going to be painted if possible, prior to the water damage or possibly covered with a drywall processThe seaming process would have been fine and less expensiveIt seems to me removing and paying for partial ***ets would be less expense to the insurance company rather than a total tear outAlso, the ***er of the billing and payment for things that were not done, other than the bagging, was not addressedThe 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 formPlease explain the, what I consider, improper billing, on my claimAlso, why was the black formation on the bathroom paneling, that I reported to your trained employee, who indicated he did not speak English, not addressedWas 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 remediationThere is a picture of that area in the pictures I was sent from your company on my fileBy not doing so, my health, as well as everyone else that was involved, was compromisedEvacuating the area immediately should have been a call made by your trained employeesWhen 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 homeYour company has some explaining to do, and your justifications are not acceptableI have considered notifying the EPA, due to the mold exposureas I required doctor visits three times and at this moment am having respiratory problems that may possibly be related to mold exposure of such magnitudeI would like a full answer and explanation to the concerns I have expressedPlease do not choose the ones you wish to elaborate on, but answer all the issues I have addressedIf 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 whomeverI will be looking forward to your explanations and reasoningAs far as the direct payment to the company, I signed the paper a few days after the process was startedI never received a copy of the form with both our signatures on itThe comments regarding the placement and monitoring of the equipment for dry out also was not addressedAs 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 knowledgeAt no time, did we have a meeting to discuss future plans after the dry outI should have been included in that process, at the very leastI 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 ***et of paper, and the graph readings were actually performed DURING the processI'm sorry, but companies that I have read about, have actually made up and documented information after the fact, when it was requestedWhen I emailed the adjuster about him producing those readings, picutures, etcHe 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 informationPlease 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 businessI know there are no regulations for water removal, but there are for moldAccording 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 futureI am not satisfied with your responseMold grows from moisture when the conditions are rightMoisture comes from an inadequate dry outThe fact that there was not any education or materials provided is also another ***erThe 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 professionalI was aware from the very beginning what the plan was, how long it would take, who would be in my home and whenIf there was a delay, I was notified as well if there were going to be a change in the employee coming that dayI was given names as well as what type vehicle arrivingAs far as the air return, it was in place and met the code for the spaceMy HVAC owner is reputable and well known in this communityThe 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 followThere are other water remediation companies that actually have the steps they follow which are actually on their web siteTheir process follows the standards(of which I have a copy) to the letterIt 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 serviceDo not forget, it is my claim on my policy on my property from my insurance companyUnfortunately, I had the recent experience of having the need to file another claim with the same insurance company that sent DWBon my residence, due to hail damageIt 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 ***et, that again explained the right of choiceI 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 provideI do not wish to continue this back and forth banter with no hope for resolutionI have represented my opinions with personal observation and researchI really had hoped this ***er could be settledLegal action will involve the insurance company, adjusters, as well as DWBI wish to discontinue the Revdex.com process and will continue with an attorney that has experience in the area of water and mold remediation
I have reviewed the complaint filed by Ms***, 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 months (March-November), which is over the course of many changes in temperature and humidity Her story changed 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 business hours Replacement Prices - Ms [redacted] supplied replacement prices for her possessions She claimed that a yr old sofa was worth 2000-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 [redacted] 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 [redacted] 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 Mr [redacted] again has made a 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 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 salvageableThen 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 insuranceRegards, [redacted] ***
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 DWBAlso, after each conversation with DWB, I sent a recap of the conversation to the adjuster, as well as making him aware of my dissatisfactionOn 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 claimHe stated the payment for DWB services, should have come to me and been made to myself and DWBI 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 providedHe 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 seniorsI will say that all DWB employees were polite and professional on the phoneHowever, the owner stated he had been out of town each time I called, not in a meeting as I was toldMy 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 reviewedI 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 MondayI agreed and ask that he call before noonHe asked if I would allow their company to do the mold remediation, and my response was a negativeThat I did not have faith, nor trust in his company at that particular timeHe had not called back on Monday by about two pmSo I called, and was transferred to Mr [redacted] , who identified himself as operation managerHe asked what amount it would take to make me happy, and I gave him an amountHe, 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 lawyerAnd that was thatI did gather all my information and see a local attorneyHe reported that I would win, but then remembered that he thought his new [redacted] worked for DWBHe called her, in my presence, and of course [redacted] had been at my propertyThe only woman I saw at the property was the one who brought the fans,etcI 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 interestThis situation just kept getting better and betterThus, I decided to forget the legal process, file a complaint with Revdex.comand move onIf 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 readingsIn regard to the supervision and proper training of their employees, I would like to see the documentation of the training and of the supervisionThe entire paneling in the basement was not warped, and I still do not agree with the necessity of total removalPaneling ***ets can be cut, replaced, and seams coveredI know it can be done, as have seen it on other projectsWhen the job is performed correctly, it is acceptable and cosmetically pleasingThe paneling there at the time was going to be painted if possible, prior to the water damage or possibly covered with a drywall processThe seaming process would have been fine and less expensiveIt seems to me removing and paying for partial ***ets would be less expense to the insurance company rather than a total tear outAlso, the ***er of the billing and payment for things that were not done, other than the bagging, was not addressedThe 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 formPlease explain the, what I consider, improper billing, on my claimAlso, why was the black formation on the bathroom paneling, that I reported to your trained employee, who indicated he did not speak English, not addressedWas 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 remediationThere is a picture of that area in the pictures I was sent from your company on my fileBy not doing so, my health, as well as everyone else that was involved, was compromisedEvacuating the area immediately should have been a call made by your trained employeesWhen 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 homeYour company has some explaining to do, and your justifications are not acceptableI have considered notifying the EPA, due to the mold exposureas I required doctor visits three times and at this moment am having respiratory problems that may possibly be related to mold exposure of such magnitudeI would like a full answer and explanation to the concerns I have expressedPlease do not choose the ones you wish to elaborate on, but answer all the issues I have addressedIf 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 whomeverI will be looking forward to your explanations and reasoningAs far as the direct payment to the company, I signed the paper a few days after the process was startedI never received a copy of the form with both our signatures on itThe comments regarding the placement and monitoring of the equipment for dry out also was not addressedAs 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 knowledgeAt no time, did we have a meeting to discuss future plans after the dry outI should have been included in that process, at the very leastI 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 ***et of paper, and the graph readings were actually performed DURING the processI'm sorry, but companies that I have read about, have actually made up and documented information after the fact, when it was requestedWhen I emailed the adjuster about him producing those readings, picutures, etcHe 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 informationPlease 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 businessI know there are no regulations for water removal, but there are for moldAccording 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 futureI am not satisfied with your responseMold grows from moisture when the conditions are rightMoisture comes from an inadequate dry outThe fact that there was not any education or materials provided is also another ***erThe 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 professionalI was aware from the very beginning what the plan was, how long it would take, who would be in my home and whenIf there was a delay, I was notified as well if there were going to be a change in the employee coming that dayI was given names as well as what type vehicle arrivingAs far as the air return, it was in place and met the code for the spaceMy HVAC owner is reputable and well known in this communityThe 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 followThere are other water remediation companies that actually have the steps they follow which are actually on their web siteTheir process follows the standards(of which I have a copy) to the letterIt 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 serviceDo not forget, it is my claim on my policy on my property from my insurance companyUnfortunately, I had the recent experience of having the need to file another claim with the same insurance company that sent DWBon my residence, due to hail damageIt 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 ***et, that again explained the right of choiceI did not see such with DWB's computer generated estimate