Phoenix Equipment Restoration

October 10, 2016To Whom it May Concern,With regards to the formal complaint filed against Phoenix Equipment Restoration; hereinto Phoenix ER, per the Revdex.com Complaint ID # iterated above, I wish to dispel the accusations levied against Phoenix ER on a point by point basis, Attached please find all...

email correspondence between the complainant and Phoenix ER regarding every issue and the extremely professional manner in which it was handled.The complainant requested certain ASAP items be restored ahead of schedule and returned to him at his temporary address. Due to the timeframe requested for start of restoration efforts and delivery to the complainant, his items were mistakenly put through a level 1 cleaning process instead of the Level 3 aqueous cleaning process required. This mistaken assumption on the part of the restoration technician was made as a result of the time frame for delivery requested as a Level 3 cleaning process could not physically be completed within the complainants requested time frame. This situation was explained to the insured in the email string conversation and also discussed with the complainant's insurance adjuster, it was suggested and initially agreed to by the complaint, (see attached email String conversation) that Phoenix ER be given the opportunity to rectify the situation by again, taking possession of the returned items and properly cleaning them. At no point was it ever inferred by Phoenix ER that we would "Double Bill" for our cleaning efforts. The insured indicated that they could not take the chance of taking possession of their items that were not properly cleaned citing "health issues" with members of his immediate family. Phoenix ER suggested, with the agreement of his insurance adjuster, that both the complainant and his adjuster inspect his cleaned items at Phoenix ER's facility, at a time convenient for the claimant, to ensure that his items have been cleaned properly and satisfactorily. This recommendation was initially deemed acceptable and then not per the email sting attached. The claimant reviewed the detailed Content item Listing completed by Phoenix ER after packing out his electronics/appliance contents that contain detailed notes and pictures pertaining to item accessories and actual pictures of items taken possession of by Phoenix ER. The claimant made subsequent accusations pertaining to a documented missing remote control for his [redacted] 55" TV and missing speakers, which we have photo documentation for as only physically receiving a portion of his set, At this point in time, the claimant was still indicating that Phoenix ER still had his approval to proceed with restoration efforts to his equipment. As a courtesy to the claimant, indicated that although we have documentation as to not physically taking possession of his claimed missing items; Phoenix ER would obtain a replacement remote control for the afore mentioned television once payment for the items cleaning was received and also forward to the insured his requested replacement speaker system price of $60.00 once the payment of that items cleaning charge of $71.25 was received (again, please review email correspondence attached). On September 26, 2016, emailed the complainant and indicated that Phoenix ER received from his insurance carrier payment for our estimated cleaning charges for his electronics/appliance contents. informed the complainant that this payment required his endorsement and attempted to make arrangements per prior discussions to again, take possession of the items previously returned to him to be put through a proper cleaning regimen, obtain his endorsement for the cleaning charges, and to give the claimant his requested check for $60.00 out of our received $71,25; for the cleaning charges for his speakers, for him to replace his claimed missing speakers that we have photo documentation as not being in the custody of Phoenix ER. The claimant then decided to not have Phoenix ER proceed with our restoration efforts, even though he signed a Work Authorization/Contract, and insisted that Phoenix ER forward the check received for pending services to him. He also insisted on Phoenix ER returning a portion of his items and disposing of the rest. 1 contacted the claimant's insurance adjuster and apprised him of the situation that the insured wished to be compensated directly for the cleaning charges and to not proceed with the restoration of his items, which he is fully entitled to do. Phoenix ER was instructed by the claimant's insurance adjuster to put a hold on the check and to await further direction. The claimant's insurance carrier decided to put a stop payment on the check received and to compensate the claimant directly for the estimated cleaning charges and to pay Phoenix FR directly for the logistical charges incurred, Phoenix ER returned to the claimant his requested items. During the delivery of his items, Phoenix ER physically located with the insured all of his items and their accessories; including the Denon Receiver Remote Control that the claimant has accused Phoenix ER as losing. The claimant, after the hour long process of physically verifying all items and accessories signed off on his delivery Report, see attached. On September 29, 2016, Phoenix ER received another email correspondence from the insured inquiring as to how we would compensate him further; after receiving the entire amount of the estimated cleaning charges for his items, as I previously offered to him as a courtesy, after receiving payment for the items cleaning. I discussed this matter with the claimant's insurance adjuster and responded to his inquest per his direction. Below please find my alleged "Unprofessional Response" to his inquest that is part of the attached email correspondence.[redacted]In response to the question regarding the items mentioned in your previous email. When we pick up electronics from a customer's home we take great care in documenting, through photos and notes, the items associated with each piece. As you are aware there was an abundance of items in the room where the bulk of the content was removed. This made it very difficult to properly gather and match all of your electronics. We documented all of the pieces that we have in our possession and at this point in time are only willing to be held responsible for the items documented in our inventory. In previous email correspondence, I indicated that t was willing, as a courtesy, to provide you with a replacement remote control for a missing remote control that we have documented on our original Content Item Listing as missing once payment for the television cleaning was received. also agreed to forward you $60 out of the received payment of $71.25 for cleaning of your computer speakers as a courtesy to you, as we have photo documentation of an incomplete set of speakers. Your decision to not allow us to proceed with the cleaning of your items and to be compensated directly for their estimated cleaning charges, which you are fully entitled to do, renders our courtesy offer of replacing your documented missing remote and documented missing speakers mute, I have discussed this matter with your adjuster and we are both in agreement that under the current circumstance of you not allowing your items to be cleaned that Phoenix ER is not under any obligation to compensate you for your claimed missing items that have been documented via notes & photos of not being in the custody of Phoenix ER. We will return all items that we have taken possession of per your request, including all game controllers that we physically took possession of. At this point, any claims for missing items, that we have either photo or note documentation for needs to be addressed through your insurance carrier,Thanks and have a great day,Jeff D[redacted], CTR Fonder and President Phoenix Equipment Restorationmain, ###-###-####cell; [redacted] fax: ###-###-#### [redacted]@Phoenix2Restore.cornPhoenix2Restore.comAs far as his undocumented accusations of "Other items damaged and stained", this is the first time this has been brought to our attention. All of his items were physically inspected by the claimant during delivery and signed off on by same. All of the items returned to the claimant, physically inspected and signed for by the claimant on September 28, 2016 were returned to him un-mitigated at his request and in the same exact physical condition with which they were received by Phoenix ER. I find it utterly apprehensible this blatant attempt by the claimant to extort additional funds from Phoenix ER for items that have been documented as being either missing prior to Phoenix ER taking possession of and being physically returned to the insured. Phoenix ER will not compensate the claimant in any way for his libelous accusations and will forward any additional libel received by the claimant to our legal Counsel seeking punitive damages per the terms of the claimants signed Work Authorization/Contract.Sincerely,Jeff D.President