Ramco Restoration, LLC

We are not willing to settle for that amount due to the following: The reason the second restoration company was required was due to the continued leak which would be plumber negligence not Ramco RestorationWe do not repair the leak and find the sourceThis is the responsibility of the plumbing companyAny complaint or accusation with regards to the leak or lack of repair should be taken up with the plumbing company directly as that is not our responsibilityHad the plumbing company done their work correctly, which the customer is clearly stating they did not, then the work provided by Ramco would have been successful in drying the issueThe customer has stated in previous responses that this was a small continuous leak so the equipment provided by Ramco would have successfully dried the materials before they became soaked again due to the continued leakWhile we feel for the customer and her continued issue with the leak, our company provided a service and need to be compensated accuratelyWe are still willing to settle with the 10% discount and would ask the customer to file a complaint against the proper company since the issue seems to be with a continued leak that the customer is stating was not accurately fixed by the plumber

This account was settled with the homeowner last week for a discounted rate

In order to settle this peacefully and without further time lost or spent we will agree to Ms***'s offer

Ramco Restoration responded to a request for assessment on a residenceWe arrived the same day of the request and assessed the damage to the homeAfter the original home visit, we were made aware that the request had come from a tenant and not the homeownerAt that time we contacted the homeowner
to arrange to go over the damage information and get the contract signedWe were not aware that the homeowner had wanted to use a different restoration company, the homeowner was under no obligation to give the job to Ramco as there was no contract signed at that time, but she did decide to sign the documentation and move forward with the restorationAfter the information on damages and what was necessary for restoration was discussed, Ms*** signed the contract to authorize Ramco to begin restorationThe technician arrived at the residence the following morning as discussed and was invited in by the tenantRamco does not have and have never had a separate contract for repair work so in no way was the technician trying to get an additional contract signed by anyone, tenant or homeowner alikeThe tenant may have had the intention for the technician to get extra improvements but Ramco, knowing the regulations and standards for each job, would not move forward with additional items for the benefit of the tenantThe technician was removed by Jesse in Utah from the job, as it is always the homeowners choice as to who they want to do any sort of work within their homeThe work that was performed and billed for by Ramco was what the technicians felt were needed to complete the job at Ms***'s homeAfter negotiations from the insurance company, which is common practice to have, the billing was settled on and the check sent to the homeownerAfter the check was received by Ms*** she continued to attempt to negotiate her billPictures and her signed contract were emailed to her on September 18th and 19th respectivelyMs*** continued to address the decontamination charges and we do want to make it clear that there are several pieces to the machinery that require decontamination that are billed separatelyAs this was a drain back up in her home we are required to decontaminate all aspects of the equipment in order to make it safe to use within a new customers homeWe cannot safely use the equipment again until each piece is thoroughly and completely cleaned and sanitizedPhotos were sent in many different forms to Ms*** as she continued to state that she could not open the attachmenta hard copy of the photos were even mailed to Ms*** to try to eliminate this issueThe dehumidifiers purpose is to remove the humidity from the air as the area driesWithout this piece of equipment the humidity within the home would increase and create longer drying time as well as a environment that is suitable for mold growthThe negative air machine, which is very commonly used with the dehumidifier, is used to clean the air within the homeAs this was a Category loss, which is dirty water that has been contaminated with dirty particles and harmful microorganisms, this machine is used to ensure the safety for the people living within the homeWithout this machine the tenants would have been breathing in dangerous and harmful particles that can cause many health issuesFurthermore, Ms*** signed the authorization for the negative air machine as well as the equipment form that showed what equipment was at her home which included the dehumidifier and the negative air machineThe only reason the Ramco technicians would be there after 5:00, which would accrue the after hours charges not overtime charges as the homeowner stated, was due to the availability for the technicians to enter the home to complete the required workHad the tenants been available prior to 5:00, those charges would not have been neededAttached is a section of the contract, which Ms*** signed, and payment that was sent to her is due immediately as the contract states:As part of this contract, the owner irrevocably assigns Ramco Restoration LLC all insurance proceeds for the work performed by Ramco Restoration LLC, and instructs their insurance company to make payment directly to Ramco Restoration LLCOwner also agrees to use the full amount of insurance proceeds for the mitigation/abatement/remediation of the property, at the address listed above, and will NOT use the funds to pay off or bring current any other debts or obligations Any unpaid balances at the completion of the work will be paid within (15) days or within (10) days of receiving insurance company paymentAll unpaid balances which exist beyond these dates will accrue interest at the rate of (18%) per annum until paid.As Ms*** has received the payment from the insurance, Ramco is requesting that the payment be made in full

We are not willing to settle for that amount due to the following: The reason the second restoration company was required was due to the continued leak which would be plumber negligence not Ramco Restoration. We do not repair the leak and find the source. This is the responsibility of the plumbing company. Any complaint or accusation with regards to the leak or lack of repair should be taken up with the plumbing company directly as that is not our responsibility. Had the plumbing company done their work correctly, which the customer is clearly stating they did not,  then the work provided by Ramco would have been successful in drying the issue. The customer has stated in previous responses that this was a small continuous leak so the equipment provided by Ramco would have successfully dried the materials before they became soaked again due to the continued leak. While we feel for the customer and her continued issue with the leak, our company provided a service and need to be compensated accurately. We are still willing to settle with the 10% discount and would ask the customer to file a complaint against the proper company since the issue seems to be with a continued leak that the customer is stating was not accurately fixed by the plumber.

This account was settled with the homeowner last week for a discounted rate.

Ramco Restoration was contacted by a plumber to go out and discuss the water damage with the home owner. Jesse B[redacted], the owner of Ramco, met with the homeowner and she hired our company to perform her water mitigation. We did have a full schedule but the homeowner was anxious to start her...

mitigation and fix the problem. We came out at our soonest available time that would accommodate her schedule as well, which was only after 5 pm which is normal business hours, and started the cleanup of the water as well as the demolition of her bathroom. Our technicians were able to completely remove all the water damaged materials from her home and set up equipment to dry the sub-flooring and wall structure. Ramco did leave the equipment for a five day period due to the high moisture readings the technicians received from her flooring and the wall structure. It was not until the last day of pickup that the various areas read within a industry standard range. As all of our invoicing is dependent on the amount of days the equipment is onsite it would be impossible for Ramco to provide a accurate bill until the work is completed. With regards to the leak itself, Ramco Restoration is not a plumbing company nor do we employ any plumbers to diagnose a plumbing matter and would be unable to diagnose a leak or fix a issue with a leak. Jesse tried to give the homeowner of an idea of where the leak may have been coming from but did not attempt to diagnose the problem with the homeowner. The wall that was removed was contaminated with water and needed to be removed to eliminate the risk of mold spores growing within the wall. We sent the mitigation bill to the insurance and the insurance sent the payment to the homeowner. The homeowner contacted our office on August 2nd to let our Insurance Estimator know that the reason she filed the complaint with the Revdex.com was due to non communication with Jesse but the office staff is unaware of any complaint about the water mitigation prior to her being unable to reach Jesse. The homeowner also stated that the reason for the complaint was so she had written communication and a "paper trail" of our contact. We have made several attempts to collect the amount specified by the insurance that was sent to the homeowner for the water mitigation to no avail and due to the extensive timeline we have considered the account for collections if a settlement cannot be reached. At this time Ramco would like to offer a discount of 10% to close out the account and finalize this claim.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
 I will settle with Ramco Restoration for $1500, that is what was paid to to the second restoration Team.They had to tear out a wall and treat the affected areas and use the dryers all over again, the same amount of work as Ramco did, but they found the source.Ramco never returned any phone calls, the lack of communication and neglect to the customer was one of the reasons another Restoration company was needed to finish the job,  as the water leak continued.The cost to repair of the wall after the leak was found and fixed, was higher than it should have been, if Ramco would have done the job right in the first place. Instead, Ramco abandon the job all together.Please let me know if Ramco will accept the offer, so that they can be paid right away, and we can close this case for good. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: 1.  I decided to move forward and use Ramco based on the oral representation by their representative that the paperwork I was signing was within industry standards formitigation.  He stated that it was standard charges, and that not to worry, all would be covered by my insurance company.  That it was standard protocol.  Based on these representations, made at my office, I signed the paperwork to proceed. 2.  The representative specifically violated my directions to meet with him only at the residence, and not to engage with the tenant.  He arrived early, went in withthe tenant and was negotiating to charge for damages that were not from the flood (insurance fraud)  My daughter was with me and overheard the same conversation.  The representative was argumentative and insisted he was receiving the reconstruction contract.  Jesse B[redacted], owner of the company from Utah, from took over the case when he heard from me what was going on.  It is a blatant lie by the company that this did not occur and I have a witness who will testify to this in court, if necessary.3.  Ramco states in their response that this billing was settled with the insurance company.  That is not true.  After numerous emails and phone calls from my insurance company to Ramco for documentation about the excessive charges, the file was closed with items pending.  A partial reimbursement was sent to me but the case was never settled. Ramco finally sent photos in September, but the insurance company still felt the charges to be excessive, specifically the number of pieces of equipment used and the negative air machine. The insurance company refused to pay any more on this claim.  Below is the language they used in their final correspondence:   4.  Ramco states the use of the negative air machine was necessary to avoid tenants breathing in harmful fumes.  This was in a basement storage area that was not even used by tenants.  Additionally, insurance company states normally either a negative air machine or a dehumidifier are used, not both.  5.  Ramco defends the use of overtime based on the tenants' inability to be there during normal work hours.  One of the tenants is disabled and does not work.  He spends hisday at home caring for their pets.  He seldom leaves the house.  Additionally, I only work part time and was available any time as needed.  This is a scam and I refuseto pay for overtime.6.  As I stated earlier, I am willing to pay for legitimate charges, based on my insurance company's experience in this area.  I am offering to settle this claim for the total sum of $4,102.37 payable immediately upon receipt from Ramco of a full and final acceptance of this offer.  If this does not occur, I am filing a complaint with the Attorney General's Office and Dept. of Insurance in Idaho.          
Sincerely,
[redacted]