Environmental Solutions Association

Review: In September I received an e-mail from this company offering HUD Home Inspector Certification Training. This was to be held on October 24th and 25th in [redacted] Maryland. I contacted the company to sign up, giving them my credit card information. Upon receipt of the confirmation I was told that there was no set place in [redacted] yet but that I would be notified as soon as it was finalized. This was on September 27, 2013. I then attempted to call them on September 29th, leaving a voice mail message for them to call me with the location. I then received a text message stating that I had to register. I sent them an e-mail on 10/7/13 with my address, phone number, etc asking where do I go online to fill out registration forms. I received no reply to this email. I again called them on 10/8/13 leaving a voice mail message which was not returned. I again sent an e-mail on 10/8/13 requesting the location and for them to please call me as I had questions. I received no response from this e-mail. I then sent another e-mail on 10/10/13 informing them that if I did not hear from them I would be contacting the Revdex.com. Still no response. I actually sent 2 e-mails on 10/10/13 out of frustration at being ignored. I then left another voice mail asking why I was being strung along and that I would be contacting my attorney. This got a response from [redacted]. He called me and let me know that the course had been moved to a location in Pennsylvania one week earlier. As I live in Virginia I would never have signed up for any type of training in Pennsylvania. As a self-employed home inspector, I do not get paid when I do not have home inspections. This would have taken me too far away from home and taken too much of my time in travel. As this was advertised as training in Maryland, I feel I was misled as it never said anything about an optional training site. Therefore I request my money back. I also contacted HUD, which is shut down due to the government, as their website states that they are not certifying any new home inspectors at this time. I feel I have been grossly misled, not to mention ignored.Desired Settlement: Refund credit card

Business

Response:

10/21/13

If you look at our front page to our website it explains that if class does not get enough registrations we will move it to another time or we offered them to take the course on line. Tere is no cash refunds allowed. It is stated very clearly see attached.

Review: After reading the complete course description for a home inspector course([redacted]) offered by Environmental Solutions Association, I signed up for it. It seemed like a huge opportunity. As the ad states, the course "prepares participants to conduct assessments using the new Green PNA tool." However, once I paid for the course, I got 30 minutes into the coursework before I realized I could not benefit from it. Slide 21 states that at least 5 years of inspection experience is required before conducting GPNA inspections. Nowhere in the course information is this stated. I emailed a representative of the business concerning this and my first two emails got no reply. After the third, I was told that "It is 5 years experience with any cost estimating and inspection." This is not true. This is my third year in business and I have inspected several HUD homes and done occasional cost estimating. The course information is lacking the fact that inspectors must have 5 years of experience to benefit from it.Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund. This is not a case of me changing my mind about doing the course. I was sincere in my commitment to complete the course. I only stopped once I realized that I could not do these GPNA inspections as it states in the course information.

Business

Response:

This client does not understand it states directly in the requirements from EPA that you must have as a requirement either 5 years experience m direct practical experience in facility assessment or cost estimating experience. See attachment from the EPA book page 21. He was given this book with his training.Thank You,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because the EPA book that this business is referring to is not provided prior to purchasing the course. The course description (attached) bears no mention of 5 years of experience being necessary to benefit from it. If it had been, I would never have paid for the course. This information was not disclosed until AFTER ESA obtained my credit card number. It is both an immoral and unethical manner to conduct business. As per my earlier letter, I request a full refund based on the premise that all pertinent information was not disclosed prior to purchase.

Regards,

Business

Response:

01/09/14As we stated before this is in the he was given the book with his training and if he did not know it prior to purchasing the course then why did he keep going and complete the course and get all the information? We have and will still offer him another course free of equal value at no additional charge. We are trying to understanding and fair as possible with this gentleman. We do not give training away free and both on our website and on his receipt it states very clearly that no cash refund on courses purchased or taken on line as we cannot take the training back. If he wants another of our many training courses FREE tell him to contact me.Thank You

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because there are inaccuracies in the business' reply. First of all, the business states that the EPA book was provided prior to purchase of the course. This is inaccurate. It was provided along with the training after payment for the course had been made. Secondly, the business claims that I kept going and completed the course even after I found out about the experience requirement. This also is inaccurate. The requirement regarding experience is stated on slide 21 of the course, I stopped a few slides after that, completing less than 20% of the course. This covered mostly only introductory information. By no means did I "get all the information" that the business claims.

Review: September 8th, 2014Sometime on May 2014 I called Mr. A[redacted] Wise to find out if Environment Solutions Association (ESA) could provide me with a Continuing Education Course for Mold Remediation Relicensing, he said they could. On June 4th, 2014 I called back and purchased the course for $300.00 dollars, it took 10 days for me to get the material by mail. After completing the required course study I called back for them to send me the test on line. They told me it would be sent immediately but I had to call again 10 days later to finally get the test.After the evaluation, a copy of the Certificate was sent to me via E-MAIL. I immediately forward a copy to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation in order to have my License renewed. After 38 days without hearing from them, I called DBPR and was informed that the ESA is not recognized by them as a provider. I contacted ESA again by E-Mail, because for some reason they did not answer my calls. They replied via Email that it would be taken care of immediately, 3 days later I called DBPR again who informed that the problem still existed. Another e-mail was sent to ESA, this time they returned with a provider authorization number ([redacted]) which turned out to be, according to DBPR, an invalid number. Without any other remedy I asked ESA for a refund, so far I have not heard from them. In the meantime I am without a license which expired on July 31st, 2014 and need the money to purchase a course from a company recognized by DPBR.I think ESA is not only unorganized, dishonorable, unethical, but they also sell products that they are not authorized to do, deceiving and defrauding their customers.Desired Settlement: A refund of $300.00 (three Hundred dollars) plus a Letter of Apology.

Review: I entered into a contract with Environmental Solutions to provide Radon and Mold training in [redacted] Nova Scotia. Class was to be held at the [redacted] Hotel on the 13 February 2014. I have repeatedly tried to contact the company for confirmation of that date and time with no luck. I checked for the [redacted] in [redacted], there is NO [redacted] in [redacted] Nova scotia. I tried several number for the company still no luck. I went on there web site and found that there is a course for Radon on the 13 February 2014 in [redacted] Ontario. That is like 3000 Km away, and I did not agree to travel across the country to attend a course in [redacted] Ontario. I paid 1204.32 for both the Radon and Mold course. The courses a discussed were only $500.00 for Radon and $500.00 for the Mold course. I was told that I would receive a 10% discount if I paid right then,so I did. rather than charge me $900.00 I was billed $1204.32. I did call the complaints department a few days later and [redacted] returned my call and said the extra charge was for the cost of the test that I would have to write. Now I believe the company has no intension on honouring the agreement so I would like a full refund as this is a breach of contract, in the amount of $1204.32Desired Settlement: Refund me the money I paid for a course you have no intension on providing.

Business

Response:

01/27/14 We never had a class in Nova Scotia and attached is the original order sheet showing it was [redacted] Canada. We have offered him these classes on line or anyother class he would like to attend. As our Web-site states there is no cash refund on courses ordered as we plan our expenses on the amount of attendees.He simply must of just changed his mind about attending. We will still honor the on line offer for him since he does not want to travel at this time.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:First of all I did not originally call Environmental Solutions, they contacted me. I still don't even know how that got my number. I was attending a Home Inspection Course at [redacted] University in [redacted] Nova Scotia. The sales person named [redacted] contacted me by a text message and told me there was a Radon course on the 11-12 February 2014 and a Mold inspection course on the 13-14 February 2014. [redacted] said that the course was going to take place in [redacted] Nova Scotia, I thought he was some how attached to the university, and that is the only reason I agreed to the course. After consulting the University they said they do not have any affiliation with Environmental solutions. [redacted] also said that if I paid right now over the phone I would receive a 10% discount on both courses. $500.00 each - 10%= $900.00. Not the $1205.00 that I paid. I am a student of the Home Inspection program here in [redacted] Nova Scotia, I never had any intension of travelling to [redacted] Ontario for any courses, nor did I elude to that while in conversation with the sales person [redacted]. Why would I? I am busy with school here in [redacted] NS. As far as offering me a on-line course, on the 16 December 2013 I received another text message from Environmental Solutions, it says, Environmental Solutions [redacted] Special Code [redacted] Save $50.00 on any online course Radon, Mold, GPNA, IAQ, Meth, Phase 1 Call to Register ###-###-####. Obviously if the message say save $50.00 they are still not honouring the money that I have already paid for the course. It looks like they want to charge me again either way, once for a course that are not planning on giving and now more money for an on-line course.

Review: I did request an immediate refund of $500 but was denied . This company implies deceptive business marketing practices appalling and false communication which is disgraceful. As per there direct communications that I was sold what was to be a GNPA course with the guarantee of direct marketing assistance via emails to the HUD Housing Authorities and other mediums. In addition they assured me that they would Cc me all emails that was to be sent to all of the HUD Housing Authorities as marketing proof as well as mechanism of data I could use as a follow up my own communications with these HUD Housing Authorities. They clearly stated that when I have paid my money and have completed the course I would be immediately qualified to perform HUD GPNA Inspections. Whereas these statements are a complete falsehood as once I have paid my GPNA course fees and proceeded into the course, the course clearly stated that not only I would have to complete the GPNA Tool learning portion of the course to be a qualified inspector but I would be required to pay another fee to complete another course to cover the Auditing portion of the GPNA Inspection that would finally qualify me to be a HUD GPNA Inspector. Another obligation that I would be required to perform these inspections I would be required to pay for that was not disclosed prior to my payment the data materials needed to submit these inspections that would cost in excess of $1,500. Moreover other supporting services as part of the paid package were but not limited to, are all supporting sample of operating HUD GPNA documents and course completion certification were never received as promised no going on 6 weeks. I spent a lot of my time money adjusting my business strategy as well as my website to marketing to perform GPNA Inspections.Desired Settlement: FULL REFUND.

Business

Response:

Handwritten response

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: The response from the defendant HAD NOT ATTACHED ITEMS NOR HAVE LISTED ANY REBUTTALS. What was listed was the following "QUOTE" "The text of your complaint may be publicly posted on Revdex.coms Web site (Revdex.com reserves the right to not post in accordance with Revdex.com policy). Please do not include any personally identifiable information when you tell us about your problem or in your desired outcome. By submitting your complaint, you are representing that it is a truthful account of your experience with the business. Revdex.com may edit your complaint to protect privacy rights and to remove inappropriate language." In addition the Revdex.com has not told me that the defendant has been deemed at fault in this registered complaint nor has recommended any remedies against this defendant.

Regards,