Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2015/08/19) */
Contact Name and Title: Jeremy [redacted]
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@burtblee.com
Dear Sir/Madam:
As counsel for Protechs, Inc., I am writing in response to the recent Complaint filed in Revdex.com Case No....
XXXXXXXX.
Respectfully, Protechs, Inc. ("Protechs") disagrees with the assertions made by the Complaining party. The work performed by Protechs and at the subject residence was with regard to damaged caused by substantial rainwater intrusion. To make matters more difficult, there was no electric power to the residence for a period of approximately 48-54 hours after the home had been flooded. Immediately upon the power being restored, Protechs began its standard drying and remediation procedure for category 1 water losses (which rainwater is one of).
Throughout the remediation process, everything was monitored and was proceeding nicely. However, after approximately 48 hours after the drying process began, and despite the fact that everything was proceeding in a standard manner, the Complaining party became impatient and prevented Protechs from continuing the services necessary to complete the drying process and remediation of the damage to the property.
In response, Protechs appropriately adjusted its bill to the Complaining party, charging them only for the services actually performed. The amount charged by Protechs was then accepted by the Complaining party's insurer, who provided payment in the same amount to the Complaining party, $1,920.28. Upon receiving the insurance funds, the Complaining party has now tendered those funds to Protechs and Protechs considers that payment to be payment in full for the services provided. The payment from the Complaining party was just received by my office on August 17, 2015, and the check tendered was dated August 7, 2015, well after this Complaint was initiated. Thus, my strong assumption is that this matter is considered to be at its close by the Complaining party, just as it is considered closed by Protechs.
As always, upon your review of this response, should there be anything left to discuss or address, or in the event you would like any additional information from my end, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance.
OFFER:
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 15, 2015/08/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
There are many falsehoods in the response from said Counsel for ProTechs, Inc. First, this was a category 2 storm and IICRC regulations state that the carpet pad should be pulled immediately upon arriving on-site. This was not done by ProTechs, Inc.
Secondly, when Joe [redacted] Operational Manager, came to my residence on Wednesday, July 1st and saw that my carpet was still saturated and smelled the sour air throughout the house from the carpet even though his men had been on site for three days, he admitted that the pad should have been pulled on day one. So said Counsel for ProTechs, Inc. is not being honest or accurate when he states that, "Throughout the remediation process, everything was monitored and was proceeding nicely. However, after approximately 48 hours after the drying process began, and despite the fact that everything was proceeding in a standard manner..." This is completely false. My carpet was still saturated on Wed July 1st and the sour smell from the wet carpet had filled the entire house. When the two men were in the process of removing the equipment from my residence, the lead man, Adam, came to me and said he took full responsibility for not removing the carpet and for the state of my carpet.
Thirdly, our electricity was out from 10am Saturday, June 28th through 6pm, Sunday June 28th which when calculated properly is a mere thirty-one hours, not 48-54 hours as stated by said Counsel. This is information that ProTechs, Inc is well aware of and is on file but which said Counsel has chosen to exaggerate for his benefit.
Fourthly, if impatience means wanting a water extraction company to literally extract water from a flooded basement and from a carpet that could be salvageable in a timely way, then call me impatient. My carpet was salvageable on Monday, June 29th, but because the carpet pad was not removed and the carpet was never lifted for the fans to properly ventilate the area, the carpet was still completely saturated on Wed. July 1st. After Mr. [redacted] saw the damage done, he still neglected to send any men out to the job site for eight hours. The men finally arrived on-site after I had called to remove them from the job. I believe it is reasonable for a homeowner to expect a water extraction company to do the job in a timely and qualified way that does not cause further damage and additional expense. But apparently Pro Techs, Inc and said Counsel views this as impatience!
Lastly, said Counsel received copies of all paperwork I sent to Gregory [redacted] along with payment stating, "I am sending payment because I have a perfect credit rating and Joe [redacted] as well as your attorney have threatened to turn me in to a debt collector, however, in no way is this payment an acknowledgement that I am satisfied with the work that was done! As you will see from the documentation, poor decisions were made from the start and I was on top of things requesting additional supervision on this job from your managers from the start to ensure everything was handled correctly. I am also asking that you reduce this bill by refunding a portion to me due to the negligence on this job resulting in more money and further damage causing more stress and unnecessary inconvenience." The check that I wrote to Mr. [redacted] clearly states, "Negligence on job" which said Counsel received a copy of.
This matter is not closed. I am requesting to speak directly with Gregory [redacted], Owner of ProTechs, Inc.This has been a long and difficult process, made so much worse by the falsehoods and intimidation tactics of said Counsel. It is my great hope that Mr. [redacted] cares about the integrity of his company and will do the right thing by making restitution in this matter.
Final Business Response /* (4030, 18, 2015/09/01) */
I have been apprised of the situation with [redacted]'s water loss and the issues being discussed. I was notified of Ms. [redacted]'s concerns as soon as she had them and I have also read her letter. I trust my managers and employees to do the right thing, and I feel they have done so in this situation.
The homeowner did not allow our company to finish the job, so I'm having difficulty with the her statement that Protechs caused more damage. I feel, after looking at the drying readings and hearing what my managers have told me, that the carpet still could have been saved and the job dried out to completion. Could the pad have been pulled sooner? Possibly, but that does not mean the job could not have been completed as originally planned.
We have already removed a charge of $115.34 in order to help expedite resolution of this issue. The invoice was for actual work done and will not be lowered or refunded just to suit Ms. [redacted], who did not allow the process to see completion.
OFFER:
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/01) */
Contact Name and Title: Eric [redacted] Project Man
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@protechsinc.com
Protechs was scheduled to go back to [redacted]'s house on 8/14 to clean the carpets at this time it was brought to the tech...
that was at the house that the walls may still be wet. At that time I informed the tech to go ahead and remove any baseboard needed and set up drying equipment until I could meet with the homeowners. There was a meeting set up on 8/18 at 12:00pm so I could meet with the homeowners to see what was going on.
On 8/18/15 at 12:00pm I arrived at the home where I meet the homeowners along with their insurance adjuster Barb [redacted] with Indiana Farm Bureau. When we went down into the basement I checked the drywall for moisture which it said there was between 8 % and 10% moisture content which is considered dry in this part of the country. I also check the holes that were drilled by the tech on 14th and the insulation was dry at that point. During my inspection on my hands and knees I was also was inspecting for any visible fungi growth which I could not see any. The homeowner went and got a drill and drilled a few holes where we did find some damp insulation. At that time I agreed to get equipment in later that day or the following morning that could dry out the walls (wall unit dryers) which was not currently on the job. Which was agreed upon by all members attending the meeting, the homeowners and the insurance adjuster along with myself. Both the adjuster and the homeowners wanted to do a mold test and have Protechs pay for it. I said at the time I would not agree to the test but let me check with the office and I would let them when I called the homeowner back on what time crew would be installing the equipment.
When I called back the homeowner back later the same day 8/18 I informed Mrs. [redacted] that I would be installed the needed equipment later the same day I just need to know what time and she said 5:30pm would be fine. I said that would be fine at which time I informed her that Protechs was willing to have SES Environmental come out and do a mold test once the walls was dry. Mrs. Rhodenzier said that would be fine. So at which time I am still thinking we have once again all agreed to what the adjuster and homeowners was asking for during our meeting earlier that day in the basement. Then at 5:00pm Mrs. [redacted] calls in and has to change the meeting to the following day. On the 19th I have Jodi my assistant and see what time we can get into the house, she had to leave a voice mail. At 3:00pm I get a call from Mr. [redacted] saying all he wants done now is to cut the drywall out and do a mold test. At which time informed him that is not what we agreed less than 24 hours earlier. I was informed that they have talked to several other professionals and this is what they said needed to be done. I further proceeded to say that first of all the walls need to be dry no matter what which Protechs will do at their cost, second thing Protechs will have a [redacted] come in and do a mold test which Protechs will do at their cost. Once the results of the test are back then we can talk about what steps need to take place. However Protechs is not willing to just start cutting out drywall and insulation before the mold test is taken as I want to deal with fact not what if's. I was told at that time by Mr. [redacted] that he was going to get back with me which he did by sending the Revdex.com letter.
I also want to point out that Protechs still has equipment in the basement of the homeowners as we was going to pick it up later on the 18th when we agreed to install different equipment that could dry the walls. I would like to set up a time so Protechs can get there equipment back.
OFFER:
Protechs is still willing to offer and agree to what was agreed on the 8/18/2015 at 12:00 PM. With the addition of doing the mold test by SES. If the test comes back positive Protechs will address the issue with the homeowner and the insurance company at that time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/09/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
On two different occasions ProTechs declared their job complete while there was wet insulation behind the walls.
Another company was contacted to provide an estimate for repairing the mess left by ProTech. Within a few minutes they removed a small rectangle of drywall that exhibited mold. This is what ProTech should have done upon first hearing there was even a chance of having not properly removed all of the moisture. Luckily our insurance company has our backs because ProTech did not provide the service they advertise.
Our basement flooded on June 27th - drywall and insulation is now going to be removed and studs sprayed with antimicrobial spray. It will likely be another month before we have finally recovered from what should have been a week long process.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/09/14) */
Contact Name and Title: Eric [redacted] Project Man
Protechs never said that they were not willing to remove the drywall and insulation if needed. What Protechs was trying to do was take the appropriate steps to correct the situation by first of all make sure the structure was completely dry by using wall drying units. The second things Protechs had agreed to do was have a third party company (SES) come in and do a mold test to see if any further steps was needed. All of this at the cost of Protechs, neither the homeowner nor the insurance company.
Now it looks like the homeowner has already hired a contractor that has removed drywall and is planning on removing the rest of the drywall and insulation to the studs? This is as per the response dated September 4, 2015. What Protechs is unclear of is just how much mold was found by this contractor and how large of an area is he planning on removing? With the mold testing that Protechs agreed to do this could have been determined as to the extent of the issue, now I feel a slug hammer is being used, when all that may have been needed was a smaller hammer. Without proper testing there is no way to know if this is the correct step that is needed. Just because mold is found on the back of drywall, that does not tell the whole story and what is the amount of mold. Mold is found in every house even ones that has never been flooded before.
OFFER:
Protechs would like to offer that we get to look at the back of the drywall that was removed (small rectangle that exhibited mold) before any further work is done. We would still like to have SES come in and does a mold test to determine to what extent if any removal of drywall and insulation is needed. Once the test results are completed and only then can an appropriate plan be made to what is affected and what is not.
We also want a time set up to be able to come to the property and pick up the drying equipment that was left in the basement. A date and time needs to be made available even if the homeowners does not except Protechs offer to correct the issues above.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2015/08/19) */
Contact Name and Title: Jeremy [redacted]
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@burtblee.com
Dear Sir/Madam:
As counsel for Protechs, Inc., I am writing in response to the recent Complaint filed in Revdex.com Case No....
XXXXXXXX.
Respectfully, Protechs, Inc. ("Protechs") disagrees with the assertions made by the Complaining party. The work performed by Protechs and at the subject residence was with regard to damaged caused by substantial rainwater intrusion. To make matters more difficult, there was no electric power to the residence for a period of approximately 48-54 hours after the home had been flooded. Immediately upon the power being restored, Protechs began its standard drying and remediation procedure for category 1 water losses (which rainwater is one of).
Throughout the remediation process, everything was monitored and was proceeding nicely. However, after approximately 48 hours after the drying process began, and despite the fact that everything was proceeding in a standard manner, the Complaining party became impatient and prevented Protechs from continuing the services necessary to complete the drying process and remediation of the damage to the property.
In response, Protechs appropriately adjusted its bill to the Complaining party, charging them only for the services actually performed. The amount charged by Protechs was then accepted by the Complaining party's insurer, who provided payment in the same amount to the Complaining party, $1,920.28. Upon receiving the insurance funds, the Complaining party has now tendered those funds to Protechs and Protechs considers that payment to be payment in full for the services provided. The payment from the Complaining party was just received by my office on August 17, 2015, and the check tendered was dated August 7, 2015, well after this Complaint was initiated. Thus, my strong assumption is that this matter is considered to be at its close by the Complaining party, just as it is considered closed by Protechs.
As always, upon your review of this response, should there be anything left to discuss or address, or in the event you would like any additional information from my end, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance.
OFFER:
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 15, 2015/08/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
There are many falsehoods in the response from said Counsel for ProTechs, Inc. First, this was a category 2 storm and IICRC regulations state that the carpet pad should be pulled immediately upon arriving on-site. This was not done by ProTechs, Inc.
Secondly, when Joe [redacted] Operational Manager, came to my residence on Wednesday, July 1st and saw that my carpet was still saturated and smelled the sour air throughout the house from the carpet even though his men had been on site for three days, he admitted that the pad should have been pulled on day one. So said Counsel for ProTechs, Inc. is not being honest or accurate when he states that, "Throughout the remediation process, everything was monitored and was proceeding nicely. However, after approximately 48 hours after the drying process began, and despite the fact that everything was proceeding in a standard manner..." This is completely false. My carpet was still saturated on Wed July 1st and the sour smell from the wet carpet had filled the entire house. When the two men were in the process of removing the equipment from my residence, the lead man, Adam, came to me and said he took full responsibility for not removing the carpet and for the state of my carpet.
Thirdly, our electricity was out from 10am Saturday, June 28th through 6pm, Sunday June 28th which when calculated properly is a mere thirty-one hours, not 48-54 hours as stated by said Counsel. This is information that ProTechs, Inc is well aware of and is on file but which said Counsel has chosen to exaggerate for his benefit.
Fourthly, if impatience means wanting a water extraction company to literally extract water from a flooded basement and from a carpet that could be salvageable in a timely way, then call me impatient. My carpet was salvageable on Monday, June 29th, but because the carpet pad was not removed and the carpet was never lifted for the fans to properly ventilate the area, the carpet was still completely saturated on Wed. July 1st. After Mr. [redacted] saw the damage done, he still neglected to send any men out to the job site for eight hours. The men finally arrived on-site after I had called to remove them from the job. I believe it is reasonable for a homeowner to expect a water extraction company to do the job in a timely and qualified way that does not cause further damage and additional expense. But apparently Pro Techs, Inc and said Counsel views this as impatience!
Lastly, said Counsel received copies of all paperwork I sent to Gregory [redacted] along with payment stating, "I am sending payment because I have a perfect credit rating and Joe [redacted] as well as your attorney have threatened to turn me in to a debt collector, however, in no way is this payment an acknowledgement that I am satisfied with the work that was done! As you will see from the documentation, poor decisions were made from the start and I was on top of things requesting additional supervision on this job from your managers from the start to ensure everything was handled correctly. I am also asking that you reduce this bill by refunding a portion to me due to the negligence on this job resulting in more money and further damage causing more stress and unnecessary inconvenience." The check that I wrote to Mr. [redacted] clearly states, "Negligence on job" which said Counsel received a copy of.
This matter is not closed. I am requesting to speak directly with Gregory [redacted], Owner of ProTechs, Inc.This has been a long and difficult process, made so much worse by the falsehoods and intimidation tactics of said Counsel. It is my great hope that Mr. [redacted] cares about the integrity of his company and will do the right thing by making restitution in this matter.
Final Business Response /* (4030, 18, 2015/09/01) */
I have been apprised of the situation with [redacted]'s water loss and the issues being discussed. I was notified of Ms. [redacted]'s concerns as soon as she had them and I have also read her letter. I trust my managers and employees to do the right thing, and I feel they have done so in this situation.
The homeowner did not allow our company to finish the job, so I'm having difficulty with the her statement that Protechs caused more damage. I feel, after looking at the drying readings and hearing what my managers have told me, that the carpet still could have been saved and the job dried out to completion. Could the pad have been pulled sooner? Possibly, but that does not mean the job could not have been completed as originally planned.
We have already removed a charge of $115.34 in order to help expedite resolution of this issue. The invoice was for actual work done and will not be lowered or refunded just to suit Ms. [redacted], who did not allow the process to see completion.
OFFER:
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/01) */
Contact Name and Title: Eric [redacted] Project Man
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@protechsinc.com
Protechs was scheduled to go back to [redacted]'s house on 8/14 to clean the carpets at this time it was brought to the tech...
that was at the house that the walls may still be wet. At that time I informed the tech to go ahead and remove any baseboard needed and set up drying equipment until I could meet with the homeowners. There was a meeting set up on 8/18 at 12:00pm so I could meet with the homeowners to see what was going on.
On 8/18/15 at 12:00pm I arrived at the home where I meet the homeowners along with their insurance adjuster Barb [redacted] with Indiana Farm Bureau. When we went down into the basement I checked the drywall for moisture which it said there was between 8 % and 10% moisture content which is considered dry in this part of the country. I also check the holes that were drilled by the tech on 14th and the insulation was dry at that point. During my inspection on my hands and knees I was also was inspecting for any visible fungi growth which I could not see any. The homeowner went and got a drill and drilled a few holes where we did find some damp insulation. At that time I agreed to get equipment in later that day or the following morning that could dry out the walls (wall unit dryers) which was not currently on the job. Which was agreed upon by all members attending the meeting, the homeowners and the insurance adjuster along with myself. Both the adjuster and the homeowners wanted to do a mold test and have Protechs pay for it. I said at the time I would not agree to the test but let me check with the office and I would let them when I called the homeowner back on what time crew would be installing the equipment.
When I called back the homeowner back later the same day 8/18 I informed Mrs. [redacted] that I would be installed the needed equipment later the same day I just need to know what time and she said 5:30pm would be fine. I said that would be fine at which time I informed her that Protechs was willing to have SES Environmental come out and do a mold test once the walls was dry. Mrs. Rhodenzier said that would be fine. So at which time I am still thinking we have once again all agreed to what the adjuster and homeowners was asking for during our meeting earlier that day in the basement. Then at 5:00pm Mrs. [redacted] calls in and has to change the meeting to the following day. On the 19th I have Jodi my assistant and see what time we can get into the house, she had to leave a voice mail. At 3:00pm I get a call from Mr. [redacted] saying all he wants done now is to cut the drywall out and do a mold test. At which time informed him that is not what we agreed less than 24 hours earlier. I was informed that they have talked to several other professionals and this is what they said needed to be done. I further proceeded to say that first of all the walls need to be dry no matter what which Protechs will do at their cost, second thing Protechs will have a [redacted] come in and do a mold test which Protechs will do at their cost. Once the results of the test are back then we can talk about what steps need to take place. However Protechs is not willing to just start cutting out drywall and insulation before the mold test is taken as I want to deal with fact not what if's. I was told at that time by Mr. [redacted] that he was going to get back with me which he did by sending the Revdex.com letter.
I also want to point out that Protechs still has equipment in the basement of the homeowners as we was going to pick it up later on the 18th when we agreed to install different equipment that could dry the walls. I would like to set up a time so Protechs can get there equipment back.
OFFER:
Protechs is still willing to offer and agree to what was agreed on the 8/18/2015 at 12:00 PM. With the addition of doing the mold test by SES. If the test comes back positive Protechs will address the issue with the homeowner and the insurance company at that time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/09/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
On two different occasions ProTechs declared their job complete while there was wet insulation behind the walls.
Another company was contacted to provide an estimate for repairing the mess left by ProTech. Within a few minutes they removed a small rectangle of drywall that exhibited mold. This is what ProTech should have done upon first hearing there was even a chance of having not properly removed all of the moisture. Luckily our insurance company has our backs because ProTech did not provide the service they advertise.
Our basement flooded on June 27th - drywall and insulation is now going to be removed and studs sprayed with antimicrobial spray. It will likely be another month before we have finally recovered from what should have been a week long process.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/09/14) */
Contact Name and Title: Eric [redacted] Project Man
Protechs never said that they were not willing to remove the drywall and insulation if needed. What Protechs was trying to do was take the appropriate steps to correct the situation by first of all make sure the structure was completely dry by using wall drying units. The second things Protechs had agreed to do was have a third party company (SES) come in and do a mold test to see if any further steps was needed. All of this at the cost of Protechs, neither the homeowner nor the insurance company.
Now it looks like the homeowner has already hired a contractor that has removed drywall and is planning on removing the rest of the drywall and insulation to the studs? This is as per the response dated September 4, 2015. What Protechs is unclear of is just how much mold was found by this contractor and how large of an area is he planning on removing? With the mold testing that Protechs agreed to do this could have been determined as to the extent of the issue, now I feel a slug hammer is being used, when all that may have been needed was a smaller hammer. Without proper testing there is no way to know if this is the correct step that is needed. Just because mold is found on the back of drywall, that does not tell the whole story and what is the amount of mold. Mold is found in every house even ones that has never been flooded before.
OFFER:
Protechs would like to offer that we get to look at the back of the drywall that was removed (small rectangle that exhibited mold) before any further work is done. We would still like to have SES come in and does a mold test to determine to what extent if any removal of drywall and insulation is needed. Once the test results are completed and only then can an appropriate plan be made to what is affected and what is not.
We also want a time set up to be able to come to the property and pick up the drying equipment that was left in the basement. A date and time needs to be made available even if the homeowners does not except Protechs offer to correct the issues above.