Preferred Cleaning Service, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/09) */
Contact Name and Title: ***
Contact Phone: ***
Contact Email: ***
When I contracted to do a Limited Visual Inspection in December of on the property, the house was occupiedThere were items
and personal property in the house that prevented full review of several areasThe sub-area crawl space was being used as a storage area by the ownersSeveral sections of the sub-area were not readily accessible and obstructed from access by items and blocked from my viewI wrote in my report that the sub-area was partially viewedIn July of 2015, I first was made aware that the new buyers of the house felt there was an issue that I did not make them aware ofI returned to the house within a day of being notifiedThe crawl space now was cleaned out, items that were blocking my view had been removed and all areas were accessibleI now could see that there were framing issuesI told the buyers that my report stated that the crawl space was only partially observedThat I could not fully view it due to items blocking my viewI thought that the issue was resolved until I was emailed by the buyer at the end of October 2015, now asking me to pay to rebuild his sub-floorI told them that the State of Nevada restricts inspectors from entry under floor crawl spaces when access is obstructed or not ready accessibleCertified inspectors are not required to move or disturb any item including, without limitation, insulation, personal items, panels, furniture, equipment, plants, soil, snow, ice, or other debrisThe buyer still felt that I was responsible, so I contacted my insurance company at the end of October and have now turned the issue over to them for their reviewThey should be getting back to me by November the 12th with there decision
Respectfully,
***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/11) */
I am sorry to hear that Arnold Inspection Services doesn't feel as if they were unable to access the crawl spaceIn the original inspection report there are multiple pictures from deep within the crawl space indicating their presence in the crawl space during their original inspectionThe structural issues missed with our house are clearly visible from the entry point used to access the crawl spaceAlso, the sagging kitchen floor should have been a clue that further inspection was necessaryThe Inspector noted upon second visit to the house that he should've noticed the sagging floor and the issues with the floor structureFurthermore he offered to refund the price of inspectionThis offer was declined because that was not the resolution we were seekingIt is our feeling that the inspection missed items that would normally be found during an inspection such as the one Arnold Inspection Services was able to completeWe have had a structural engineer and two separate contractors out to assess the issueAll parties are in agreement that the initial inspection and subsequent report failed to acknowledge significant structural issues with our propertyOur kitchen floor is sagging and it is the contractors feeling that the structural issues could progress to the point of failureShould that event occur this house would be rendered unlivable and that situation would place my family at riskI am requesting that you pay the quoted fee by our contractor to repair the structural issueArnold Inspections has accepted that they missed these findingsThe claim that they were unable to access the crawl space is not trueWe are pleased that Arnold Inspections has turned the case over to their insurance company provided the insurance company takes action to resolve this issue
Respectfully,
***
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2015/12/04) */
Both myself and *** and *** came to an agreement to settle on the complaint that they brought to your officeWe reached an acceptable agreement on November 19thMy insurance was not involved in the settlement
Thank you,
Inspector ***
Arnold Inspection Services Inc
Nevada Association of Certified Real Estate Inspectors
Member - Revdex.com of Northern Nevada
***
Cell (775) ***
Fax (775) 852-
E-mail ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/09) */
Contact Name and Title: ***
Contact Phone: ***
Contact Email: ***
When I contracted to do a Limited Visual Inspection in December of on the property, the house was occupiedThere were items
and personal property in the house that prevented full review of several areasThe sub-area crawl space was being used as a storage area by the ownersSeveral sections of the sub-area were not readily accessible and obstructed from access by items and blocked from my viewI wrote in my report that the sub-area was partially viewedIn July of 2015, I first was made aware that the new buyers of the house felt there was an issue that I did not make them aware ofI returned to the house within a day of being notifiedThe crawl space now was cleaned out, items that were blocking my view had been removed and all areas were accessibleI now could see that there were framing issuesI told the buyers that my report stated that the crawl space was only partially observedThat I could not fully view it due to items blocking my viewI thought that the issue was resolved until I was emailed by the buyer at the end of October 2015, now asking me to pay to rebuild his sub-floorI told them that the State of Nevada restricts inspectors from entry under floor crawl spaces when access is obstructed or not ready accessibleCertified inspectors are not required to move or disturb any item including, without limitation, insulation, personal items, panels, furniture, equipment, plants, soil, snow, ice, or other debrisThe buyer still felt that I was responsible, so I contacted my insurance company at the end of October and have now turned the issue over to them for their reviewThey should be getting back to me by November the 12th with there decision
Respectfully,
***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/11) */
I am sorry to hear that Arnold Inspection Services doesn't feel as if they were unable to access the crawl spaceIn the original inspection report there are multiple pictures from deep within the crawl space indicating their presence in the crawl space during their original inspectionThe structural issues missed with our house are clearly visible from the entry point used to access the crawl spaceAlso, the sagging kitchen floor should have been a clue that further inspection was necessaryThe Inspector noted upon second visit to the house that he should've noticed the sagging floor and the issues with the floor structureFurthermore he offered to refund the price of inspectionThis offer was declined because that was not the resolution we were seekingIt is our feeling that the inspection missed items that would normally be found during an inspection such as the one Arnold Inspection Services was able to completeWe have had a structural engineer and two separate contractors out to assess the issueAll parties are in agreement that the initial inspection and subsequent report failed to acknowledge significant structural issues with our propertyOur kitchen floor is sagging and it is the contractors feeling that the structural issues could progress to the point of failureShould that event occur this house would be rendered unlivable and that situation would place my family at riskI am requesting that you pay the quoted fee by our contractor to repair the structural issueArnold Inspections has accepted that they missed these findingsThe claim that they were unable to access the crawl space is not trueWe are pleased that Arnold Inspections has turned the case over to their insurance company provided the insurance company takes action to resolve this issue
Respectfully,
***
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2015/12/04) */
Both myself and *** and *** came to an agreement to settle on the complaint that they brought to your officeWe reached an acceptable agreement on November 19thMy insurance was not involved in the settlement
Thank you,
Inspector ***
Arnold Inspection Services Inc
Nevada Association of Certified Real Estate Inspectors
Member - Revdex.com of Northern Nevada
***
Cell (775) ***
Fax (775) 852-
E-mail ***

Review: I was referred to Preferred Cleaning. I had been using an alternate carpet cleaning service for the time we have owned our home (12 years) but do to some water damange, we decided to go with Preferred Cleaning based on the referral. The gentleman came to clean the carpets in the basement which was a fine job but did offer me a Stain Protector upgrade which I did agree to. In total the bill came up to be approximately $60 more than estimated, with what I had believed was a smaller area as no furniture was moved during the cleaning, only the "open area" was cleaned. My understanding of this product was that it helped to protect the carpet from stains setting in. A couple weeks after having the cleaning service by dog had an vomitting episode in the basement. I attempted to clean up the accident but I have never seen an accident like this (and there have been many in 12 years) soak directly into the carpet and even with a good carpet cleaning solution I wasn't able to pull up the stain. I contacted Preferred Cleaning and indicated the problem and concern and that I would like to have them come to clean the carpet under what I believed was the warranty of the stain protector. She indicated that it would be a few days before they could come out but I waited as I had beleived it was covered under the warranty and she did not indicate that it wasn't going to be covered. When I returned home, after they had been out to clean up the stains they left a bill for approximately $80! I contacted them again, explained by understanding and then I didn't hear back for awhile so I had assumed that it was resolved. A couple/few months later I receive a bill in the mail with "PAST DUE" written all over it and again, I contacted them. She indicated that they had been attempting to contact me (which I never received any missed or voice messages) but in fact, that was my balance due. I am completely unsatisified with how this whole billing issue went down and they are unwilling to negoatiate or discuss rectifying the issue. Had I have known that I would have an $80 bill for them to come clean up three stain spots (that shouldn't have been there in the first place, had the Stain Protector actually functioned properly) I would not have utilized them for the service or waited for them to perform the service.

I am disappointed with Preferred Cleanings handling of this situation. They could have had a long-term customer in me and I would have referred them based on their initial work. Because they have been unwilling to negotiate or discuss a resonable conclusion not only have they not made a long-term customer in me they are also putting me in the position of me not only not recommending them but also telling individuals to stay away from them. Which is unfortunate as they are a local-company and I wish them success as it is a diffucult economy, unfortunately they do not seem to value customer loyalty.Desired Settlement: At minimum, we should agree to a reasonable charge for the service performed, $80 in my mind is not reasonable. $40 would be a more reasonable charge for this service. At best, I would like to see them remove the balance due.

Business

Response:

October 29,2013

Mr. [redacted]

Revdex.com of Wisconsin

Dear Mr. [redacted],

I am very sorry Mrs. [redacted] is unsatisfied with the fee charged for cleaning the dog vomit and

diarrhea from her basement carpet May 21, 2013.

Scotch Guard protection does not have any provisional guarantees or warranties. I never implied

when asking her if she would like Scotch Guard applied during the initial cleaning in April of

this year that there was. Her assumption that any future cleanings after this application would

be at no charge is unfortunate. If Mrs. [redacted] had vocalized her thoughts to my office staff at

the time of scheduling, they certainly would have informed her that she would be charged for

the services.

I have attached copies of both invoices. As you can see I gave Mrs. [redacted] a 10% discount on

her first service and charged less than our normal pricing for the set of stairs she added after I

arrived to her home in April. The May invoice reflects how many times my office staff and

myself had contacted her and actually talked to her via phone. I am questioning her statement

that I charged her $60.00 more than she was quoted. She added the stairs which I charged her

$35.00 for, our normal price is $40.00 and the Scotch Guard was $30.00. Had she assumed any

areas she added after I arrived would be at no charge also?

As a professional, certified carpet cleaner I was able to remove the vomit and diarrhea from the

carpet. Over the counter products are effective for small clean up jobs, however they are

ineffective on bad stains when our pets get into things they shouldn't.

As a good faith gesture I am willing to offer Mrs. [redacted] a 10% discount on her May 21, 2013

invoice. Her total to satisfy this unpaid balance is $70.94.

Sincerely,

###-###-####

Consumer

Response: