Home Energy Medics Reviews (%countItem)
Home Energy Medics was contracted to provide insulation and home improvement services on my home. The company does not have an internal group of workers but subcontracts out all their work. I contracted for this firm to air seal both my attic and basement work area. The company subcontracted out the insulation work to a company called The ***. The machine used by the *** during the installation was not creating the correct ratio of chemicals to create the right mix of foam which has resulted in a fishy smell now in our home which is indicative of improper delivery. I have fired this company from the job but have paid them for the work that had been performed properly but withholding the amount that is completely wrong. The owner of the company, Scott D, has BEEN A HORROR to work with as he has denied that the work was performed improperly and has left our family in a toxic environment.
Date: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:46 PMSubject: Response to complaint IDTo: <***@myRevdex.com.org>I am writing to respond to the subject complaint from ***. We did contract with *** for the services listed to also include some drywall and paint. *** contends the work was performed incorrectly by one of our subcontractors, ***, due to problems with the foam machine used on the job. I reported to *** while on-site that there was an initial problem with the foam mixing that was going to result in a delay in the job completion since foam work could not begin until the problem was resolved. This happens from time to time and is abundantly evident. In order to resolve this, a set of procedures is followed to include cleaning the gun, checking valves, and checking the compressor on the machine. The problem was resolved and small samples of foam were sprayed on plastic to ensure it was on ratio and solidifying properly before any was ever applied to the home. This is normal procedure.
*** claim of a fishy smell due to improper delivery of the foam is simply not factual. At the completion of work, testing was done with a sophisticated blower door system and pressure anemometers which showed a 98% isolation of the areas where spray foam was applied from the living space of the home. *** was provided this information in a test out report and additional documentation of the results. Since test out results indicated the house was below ventilation standards set by the American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for healthy indoor air quality, we recommended the installation of a specialized air cycler switch to be installed in place of his bath fan switch that would periodically exhaust stale air out of his home. *** did not pay for this switch to be installed.This is the likely cause of his fishy smell/odors in the home.
*** was happy with Home Energy Medics and continued to sign change orders and/or email approvals for a significant amount of additional work that he desired to be performed at his home; however, after he received his final invoice he became upset about portions of the work and continued to try to find multiple small punch-out items that he continued to withhold final payment due of $29,548.50. He stipulated in a check he mailed to us for a portion of this that if cashed, he considered this our acceptance of payment in full. We did not accept this and the check was not cashed. All issues brought to our attention were addressed very quickly to the extent we were allowed on his property to do so. Our legal counsel has had to be engaged to try to seek resolution with *** and his counsel.
Hope this helps!
Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 8:00 AMSubject: follow up to compliant IDTo: <***@myRevdex.com.org>Dear ***,
This is a follow up to the response you received from the complainant after he received our first response.
*** rejected our response for not providing truthful feedback. There is simply no basis for this. *** was well aware of the costs of the work via email and text correspondence and approved work completed in advance of it being initiated before formal change orders could be initiated. An example of this is provided in the attached letter sent to his lawyer.
There was no shoddy workmanship or attempt to "rush" the job. The test out report is attached which shows excellent results. The work in his basement coffee room was originally supposed to be covered with drywall to give a properly finished appearance. Midstream, *** decided he wanted to leave everything exposed, but still apparently expected a finished look. The spray foam materials used were never meant to have a finished/smooth look given the nature of the material itself and the application process. It is assumed this, in part, has created his perception of shoddy work. Much additional work was done subsequently in an attempt to satisfy his concerns to no avail. Resulting material thicknesses far exceeded nominal thicknesses applied.
WRT his claims about improperly curing foam, no "bad" foam was identified or ripped out at the time of our last visit to the home as *** indicates. *** became upset when we would not acknowledge there was bad foam after our inspection. On this last visit, since the team already had the foam rig set up and tested before my arrival, we went ahead and sprayed some additional foam around the perimeter that day in a final attempt to still try to satisfy his concerns about cosmetic appearances.
The attic was covered with 16 inches of cellulose, not 35 as *** indicates. It can be moved and the foam sealing work inspected if he wishes. He was provided the opportunity to inspect the foam himself before the cellulose went in but did not take it. We stand by the spray foam product applied, and *** can provide no evidence that the material was inferior. The pre-application test procedures ensure foam is mixing properly as discussed in prior correspondence.
His complaints about work not performed have also been previously addressed in correspondence with him on multiple occasions. Thanks,
[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 as Answered]
I am rejecting this response because:
the statements in the attorney’sletter are not an adequate representation of the facts. Scott D is very cunning and made up quite a bit of the material in the letter to serve his purpose. The simple statement that there were no problems with the insulation work are not only false, but specifically the police were called to escort him off the property as he was clearly disobeying orders NOT to spray over the shoddy insulation work. Ironically, the subcontractor themselves stated to me prior to Scott’s arrival on the day he was escorted off the property that the foam was NOT curing properly. Additionally, the Fairfax County Policeman who instructed Scott to leave witnessed that foam materials had been cut out and removed that day. The further claim that foam was further applied over non-curing foam is of further concern as this would indicate that Scott and the *** attempted to HIDE the non-curing foam underneath.
scott made further misrepresentations in his letter with regard to my “bragging” about having to fire other contractors. This is not an area that would be a reasonable comparison as the prior contractors created a non-compliant and very dangerous situation with the improper installation of air conditioning equipment. Scott saw their work and commented “my standards are higher even than your standards” so you have nothing to worry about.
additionally, I never had an intention to place *** in the basement room. Scott incessantly imposed his thoughts along the way on this matter while also interjecting how easy it would be to Finance through his company.
scott fails to remember the email I sent him at the beginning of the project indicating that we were on a very tight budget which was the reason why I declined his prior estimates.
scott continues to maintain that change orders were agreed to prior to work being performed which is an outright mistruth and he knows it. This is the reason for my pointing our to him in emails.
Scott also claims that all change orders were signed which they absolutely were not. I did not sign the last one specifically because I had realized a number of issues related to the accounting which were very sloppy. Additional and significant amounts were being added to later change orders due to forgetting a line item or two totaling over $800z additionally, Scott indicated that he was to install very high quality lighting in the basement which turned out to be $20 fixtures. Scott attempted to charge over $100+ for each of these fixtures which were clearly not of the quality he represented.
Scott also has materially failed to clear up the accounting issue related to the first signed contract which was for a list of services - half of which were not even rendered. When asked for a restatement of accounting, Scott indicated only a $1k adjustment dispute the fact that the other work had not been performed.
I never received a copy of the letter and MR. R is not representing me in this matter.
I would appreciate the letter to be sent to my attention.