Moldex...The Mold Experts

Review: Daryl Choby, owner of MOLDEX - The Mold Experts, issued a Bid on May 1, 2003 for multiple remediation, decontamination and deep cleaning services to be performed at 7800 E. Lincoln Dr. Unit #xxxx in Scottsdale, AZ 85250, including 2) the affected Master Bedroom/Shower Wall, listed in three different places in the Bid as Master Bedroom/Shower Wall. During the initial walk through with Mr. Choby, my tenant Ana U. and me, Mr. Choby took us to the Master Bedroom/Shower Wall (inside the bathroom) and pointed out a crack in the tub, claiming that the tub needed to be replaced as the leak caused mold to grow under the tub, which was in fact the mold he would be treating. We agreed and made arrangements for the tub to be removed and my tenant and I shopped for a new tub and tiles. We got a verbal bid for the tub removal, installation of the new tub and tiles (to be installed after Moldex had completed their described work on the Shower Wall). In good faith on June 5th I sent a check in the amount of $1,981.50 for 50% of the Bid as a Deposit (even though the Bid did not require a Deposit of any kind) and received the scheduled dates of service with Mr. Choby. The day before services were to begin (June 18th) our bathroom contractor requested that we confirm with Mr. Choby that the old Shower Cement Board Wall would be replaced with new Cement Board to which the new tiles could be affixed or at least be provided for him. Ana U called Mr. Choby while I was sitting at the table with her listening to her side of the conversation, which was basically for a confirmation that the replaced Shower Wall would be Cement Board. I could discern from what Ana said after that, Mr., Choby claimed "Master Bedroom Shower Wall" really was the wall in the Hallway entering the Master Bedroom (actually the opposite side of the "Shower Wall") and that he never intended to do any work in the bathroom or on the "Shower Wall". Ana asked for some reduction in the Bid for the misunderstanding and Mr. Choby refused. Mr. Choby called me at 11:30PM that evening and after discussing the misunderstanding he said "I am sick of this whole thing and will refund your deposit." I agreed saying it was the best resolution. Today I received Mr. Choby's email saying "As I said in my earlier email (after our agreement for the refund of my Deposit was made by phone), I'm going to be evaluating the situation over the next few days and making a decision as to exactly what I'm going to claim for damages early next week.” He had never mentioned any damages previously and broke his agreement to refund my entire Deposit.Desired Settlement: Mr. Choby agreed to refund my $1,981.50 Deposit and I want him to live up to his agreement, plus any costs I may incur recovering my money, including legal fees and costs and any other out-of-pocket expenses.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern, Let me begin by stating that I find it ironic that this person, [redacted], would attempt to abuse the complaint resolution services of the Revdex.com, when his own company is not even a member. This dient tried to extort free work, and when that failed, he filed his complaint to draw attention away from his obvious breach of contract. Let me begin by saying that Moldex has been in business for over 13 years. My company is highly successful with 90% of our business coming from referrals from our past clients. We are the only company in our industry to have received Angie's List Super Service Awards (let alone for the last 2 years in a row), have received several Honor Roll Awards and were featured in the Pages of Happiness section of their magazirle in June of 2013. We have no complaints with the State of Arizona Registrar of Contractors, have never had a formal complaint or been named in litigation. This complaint is a first, so please excuse my emotional reaction. This was an unusual project because I typically do not take a deposit. Past clients can tell you that I opt for payment in full after the project has been completed and the client is satisfied. This is a reflection of my belief and practice of treating all people with honesty, integrity & fairness. Alii ask is to be treated the same. The deposit was requested when it became very evident to me that this client did not share this same belief. I submitted :2 bids on this project. The 1st bid (dated May 1, 2013), that the client is loosely quoting from, was rejected by him on May 2, 2013. As proof, I have his email rejecting the bid and requesting that it be revised to exclude all finishing repair items such as drywall, insulat'lon, texture, primer, paint, etc., because his "guy" was going to do these repairs. The client acknowledged receipt of this new 2"d bid in an email that he sent on May 3,2013. Both bids called for the remediation and repair of the wall located at the entry corridor, just inside the Master Bedroom. "It is described as the "Master Bedroom/Shower Wall" because it shares a common wall with the Master Bathroom Shower Stall. This wall was flagged when, during the initial "walk thru" (the tenant was not present) the client pointed out this wall. He feared that a crack in the Fiber Glass Master Bathroom tub may have allowed water to enter into the wall, possibly having caused Mold. The wall looked fine, there were no water staining and the paint was in very good shape. I inspected the tub, ran the water. After taking numerous moisture readings, I concluded that the wall was dry and the fiberglass tub merely had a superficial surface crack that was not leaking. The client then stated that when he bought the home, there was a "small area" of Mold on the lower wall area that his "guy" had cleaned up bleach prior to painting. A test sample indicated the presence of Mold. Based on the client standing at the wall and physically indicating the area ofthe wall area that was affected prior to the cleaning and painting, this area was included in the bids. The second bid was accepted. The day prior to starting the project...ln the late afternoon of June 18, 2013, I received a call from his "tenant" (really his business partner and stepdaughter) informing me that they had found a contractor that was willing to do the project for less money. The tenant requested that I either lower my price or supply & install free cement board in the Master Bathroom Shower. Apparently, they had now decided to do a Master Bathroom Shower Stall Renovation. The call ended soon after I informed the tenant that I had nothing to do with a Master Bathroom Shower Renovation, that I would not be willing to either drop my price or supply and install any free cement board. The client had already accepted the contract and the time to negotiate had already come and gone. The project was slated to start the following morning. later that evening, I received an urgent request to call the client. I called him late that evening. When I spoke with the client, the conversation was a continuation of the theme of getting something for nothing. But now the client upped the ante by insisting that I had agreed to rip Ollt the entire master bathtub shower stall area, remediate the area and then renovate the entire master bathroom shower stall by supplying and installing a New Bathtub and Shower Surround. This is fiction. None of this was not in my bid and it would cost thousands of additional dollars in order to do a project of this nature. I suggested that, since there was nothing wrong with the fiberglass tub other than a cosmetic surface crack, he might consider having it repaired for a fraction of the cost by an onsite bathtub repair company. The client said "I doubt that" and informed me that I was fired. I asked the client about the contractor that under bid me. He replied that there was no other contractor. After discussing his tenant's earlier demands, he swore to he had no one. So he effectively called her a liar. As you can see by his complaint, he was once again not being truthful. Despite the client's blatant dishonesty, and against all advice, I responded to the client's email. On 3 occasions I offered versions of the explanation that "I will be assessing my damages over the next few days and will be proposing a fair resolution to the question of returning your deposit." I made this statement because, in our industry, we sometimes make purchases and provide deposits for materials and labor that are non-returnable or non-refundable. My legal advisor advised me to wait and see if I had incurred any damages before I considered return any of the deposit money. On Thursday, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:50 AM, I sent an email to the clients stating "I will be assessing my damages over the next few days and will be proposing afair resolution to the question of returning your deposit". My position and final accounting would have been completed by the following Monday, June 24, 2013. Instead of waiting, I received an email later that morning that read in part "If I don't have a Cashier's Check for $1,981.50 (you agreed to refund) delivered to me the address below by 5PM today I will file very detailed complaints tomorrow with the Registrar of Contractors, The Revdex.com and Angie's List, followed shortly thereafter by a Lawsuit" and later that morning "Your call the complaints will be prepared today. How do you feel about being retromingent? (The dictionary describes "Retromingent" as "an animal that urinates backward", I would assume thru its anus) To date, both you and Angie's List have received his complaint, so I don't doubt the client's statement that he has also filed a complaint with the State of Arizona Registrar of Contractors and litigation. As a believer in transparency, and in an effort to clear my company's good name, I would be happy to provide unedited copies of both contracts and all emails. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call.

Business

Response:

Please find the attached letter that I received from the State of Arizona Registrar of Contractors.As you can see, Mr [redacted] complaint was investigated, found to be without merit and subsequently closed.My company has invested much time and effort into this matter, even though we had no obligation to refund anything to this customer.Despite not being obligated to refund anything to Mr. [redacted], on three occasions we offered to try todetermine a fair and amicable resolution to this matter as a courtesy. Our offers were met withvulgarities, and since then he has continued to defame my company in every available forum.I welcomed the Registrar of Contractors investigation, and I ask that you respect their decision and putthis matter to rest once and for all.Thank you in advance for your consideration.Regards,[redacted] Moldex

Consumer

Response:

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.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

Please see my letter to the ROC. “without merit” is not mentioned and in fact the ROC Investigator told me they do not investigate $ claims but would take a judgment from the court and investigate Mr. [redacted] failure to return my deposit. My deposit was not required; was made in good faith by me; there was no contract proffered, executed or not executed and no work of any kind was done by Mr. [redacted] company MOLDEX In truth, Mr [redacted] told me “I am sick of this and I will send your money back.” There were no other offers of any kind ever made. In fact in a recent writing he said he did not owe me any money. As to “vulgarities”, I am unaware of a single one. What he likely is referring to is my reference to him being “retromingent”, a word used by Federal Court Judges on the record frequently. I also have used the word as well when someone makes an agreement with me as Mr. [redacted] did to “refund my deposit”, and then fails to live up to that agreement as he did. It was a word Mr. [redacted] had to look up and butcher the true Webster’s definition (“urinating backwards as cats do”) into something entirely different. Thank you, [redacted]