Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID .***,and find that Mediation is necessary I want to be clear on why I am pursuing this complaint: Technically, the contractor has finished the mitigation What needs to be noted is that the contractor did not supply all of the materials or man hours that was quoted to the Insurance company He also overestimated the square footage that needed mitigated and worked on by at least square feet That is not an assumption, that is fact based on an other mitigation companies review Whether it was submitted off a template or is standard practice, that fact is it was not done and should not have been part of the $4,500 check that was issued to contractor Contractor did copper plumbing work without a licensed plumber Probably not against the law, put I would think that an A+ rated company would promote if they are bonded and insured, which I am not sure the company is I will be sure to include that information in my review of the company The contractor asked to be labeled as the General Contractor because he verbally committed to doing the repair work He also submitted the material and labor estimate for the repair work to insurance He took pictures and via a text message, committed to "having his guy" show up to finalize what needed to be done Contractor claims that he never put anything in writing in regards to repair work, but he submitted list to insurance company That coupled with his verbal response, I had no reason to think he was not gong to do the work Based on this information, I think the Revdex.com needs to evaluate an A+ rating of a company that does.not keep their promises even if it was verbal. What I am looking for in regards to refund: $person check giving to the contractor The memo field of the check clearly states mitigation work Contractor was paid $4,from insurance company, and he agreed to that amount That means he was over paid by $for the mitigation work Cost of dumpster for mitigation - $- This was never supplied and contractor used my tools and trash bags Daily Equipment inspection - $- Contractor states he reviewed days, but only showed up twice is hours * $ general labor to content manipulate personal belongingsman hours @ $28hrs = $- Contractor never did this work anti microbial application - $ - Contractor charged for 300sqft at a cost of $ At most, the area is square feet Pictures of my garage need to be removed from owner and or companies social media site(s) I did not sign a document or give any type of permission for pictures of my house or contractors work to be published Total refund of $1,071.50In the event the contractor talks about plumbing work, this is STRICTLY for the mitigation.
Regards,
*** ***
Last November, the consumer met with the business owner, the Building Dept and the insurance reps. The insurance company verbally agreed to replacing the roof decking. Three hours after the business had removed the upper rear decking of the house, the insurance company informed the
business that they would not pay of the decking. The business owner did not charge the consumer for the workThe consumer then paid for the front at a discounted rate and signed a Certificate of Completion at the end of the job.The consumer is now trying to sue the insurance company. The insurance company is blaming the business for providing the wrong code. The business owner disputes this, because the Building Department, consumer and two State Farm officials were all present when the codes were provided
I have contacted Mr*** about his complaint regarding payments made for services renderedI supplied Mr.*** with all paperwork showing insurance companies agreed amount paid for my mitigationAll work supported with pics on file with insurance and the insurance paid per scopeMr.*** has made accusations as his insurance company paid exact amount per our scope of workPayments were made to Mr.*** for interior repairs and mitigation workWe received mitigation money per our agreement. Dan M*** RFD Services
1) agreed signed contract based on insurance scope for a wind claim. Contract signed on insurance agreement. Signed agreement/insurance scope have no “chimney cap” included. This was a wind damage claim and wind does not blow off cement chimney caps. No records or attached additional work order signed for additional cement chimney work in file. There accusations are false and incorrect z copies of insurance scope and signed contract have be emailed for proof.2) certificates of satisfaction are either signed , emailed using pics for supporting evidence. Final payments were made per agreed insurance scope and contract and Rfd Services was paid (with exception to $1000 deductible which they are supposed to pay to me ) were made therefore satisfaction was shown. 3) accusations on Rfd being the cause for denied Roof sheathing have been satisfied and proven false with evidence of emails from the [redacted]’s stating ** [redacted] summit county bldg. Dept about codes and permit being failed per enforced code. 4) insurance scope paid for chimney flashing’s and Rfd shows picture evidence shows we completed the flashing and fulfilled agreement to satisfaction 5) gutter guards were paid 373.27 to remove and re-install. Rfd removed gutter guards. So half work completed. $186.64 remains. However homeowners were informed the brittle old gutter guards could not be installed and were requested to purchase new due to breaks. New guards never purchased by homeowners so they were not installed. Now 9 months later this has become an issue. Rfd Services was never paid $1000 deductible and also upgraded shingles to lifetime valued over $1200 and also installed rear upper slope at no charge after insurance denied or retracted verbal approval. I have satisfied all contractual agreements and walked away happy however some customers can not be happy or look for anything to “get ahead”. There accusations/complaint are slanderous and hold no credibility per of signed agreement. Please call me to discuss [redacted] Thanks Dan M[redacted] RFD Services [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
One last point of clarification that I want added to the record....
Before I get phone calls from attorney’s in regards to slander as was mentioned this morning, I will not accept nor close this case until I have another Mitigation Company verify that everything was done per the signed contract. A Licensed plumber verify that the soldering was done correctly and valves were installed correctly. Because there are inconsistencies on the lines items that were signed off and paid for mitigation (i.e. dumpster and man hours), it raises concerns, and I want to be sure no other shortcuts were taken.I will have this done in the next 7 to 10 business days and will also have this done at my expense.-[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Updated Nov 14th 2017 We are still rejecting RFD services response to our complaint. RFD services are again NOT addressing the fact that they did not finish the job of reinstalling the gutter guards and to re cap and mortar both the chimneys after being paid this is fraud. This is what our complaint is about not the decking. We have not asked for the $4000 dollars back we are asking for the $500 RFD services deposited from us for the Chimneys. RFD services seem more focused on bringing up irrelevant information about the decking. DECKING IS NOT THE COMPLAINT and RFD Services are wasting every body’s time by not address the complaint. Examples of this Item 1: Trying to prove the township inspectors were present (yes they were included in emails and they were called, but were never present at our home ) is irrelevant to the Chimneys and Gutter Guards. Item 2: Providing images of deck installation (AGAIN IRRELEVANT to the chimneys and Gutter Guards) We were not even asking for the $373.27 deposited for removal and re-installation of the gutter guards, which RFD services half completed (they took off the guards and never replaced, hence my picture of the guards on the floor still in previous message and figure 1). Pricing on attached state farm invoice, figure 2 Due to RFD services prolonging this process and wasting our time further we also want half of the Gutter Guard removal and installation money back $186.63. For this complaint to be resolved we need to see $686.63 deposited back to us for Chimney and Gutter Guards work never completed. WE DO NOT NEED TO SEE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE DECKING.
The complaint is on the edge of slanderous. The only signed agreement we have is for the mitigation. Insurance took 2 months to pay me less money than I billed them. The 4500$ was for the mitigation only [redacted]. we also completed the following items that I will apply the $500 dollar personal check to. I will list them below. The additional work performed is more than the $500 paid. 1)Framing under tub around drain2) new bathroom drain assembly installed 3) 2 faucet replacements (bathroom)4) 4 water supply lines 5) 16 linear foot 1/2 cooper supply lines6)Shower facet and head7)Remove and install access panel for shower faucet The 7 items listed above were outside of mitigation and were in addition to. I will forward emails from insurance stating that the 4500$ was agreed on to pay mitigation. I will call you to discuss. Dan [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID .***,and find that Mediation is necessary I want to be clear on why I am pursuing this complaint: Technically, the contractor has finished the mitigation What needs to be noted is that the contractor did not supply all of the materials or man hours that was quoted to the Insurance company He also overestimated the square footage that needed mitigated and worked on by at least square feet That is not an assumption, that is fact based on an other mitigation companies review Whether it was submitted off a template or is standard practice, that fact is it was not done and should not have been part of the $4,500 check that was issued to contractor Contractor did copper plumbing work without a licensed plumber Probably not against the law, put I would think that an A+ rated company would promote if they are bonded and insured, which I am not sure the company is I will be sure to include that information in my review of the company The contractor asked to be labeled as the General Contractor because he verbally committed to doing the repair work He also submitted the material and labor estimate for the repair work to insurance He took pictures and via a text message, committed to "having his guy" show up to finalize what needed to be done Contractor claims that he never put anything in writing in regards to repair work, but he submitted list to insurance company That coupled with his verbal response, I had no reason to think he was not gong to do the work Based on this information, I think the Revdex.com needs to evaluate an A+ rating of a company that does.not keep their promises even if it was verbal. What I am looking for in regards to refund: $person check giving to the contractor The memo field of the check clearly states mitigation work Contractor was paid $4,from insurance company, and he agreed to that amount That means he was over paid by $for the mitigation work Cost of dumpster for mitigation - $- This was never supplied and contractor used my tools and trash bags Daily Equipment inspection - $- Contractor states he reviewed days, but only showed up twice is hours * $ general labor to content manipulate personal belongingsman hours @ $28hrs = $- Contractor never did this work anti microbial application - $ - Contractor charged for 300sqft at a cost of $ At most, the area is square feet Pictures of my garage need to be removed from owner and or companies social media site(s) I did not sign a document or give any type of permission for pictures of my house or contractors work to be published Total refund of $1,071.50In the event the contractor talks about plumbing work, this is STRICTLY for the mitigation.
Regards,
*** ***
Last November, the consumer met with the business owner, the Building Dept and the insurance reps. The insurance company verbally agreed to replacing the roof decking. Three hours after the business had removed the upper rear decking of the house, the insurance company informed the
business that they would not pay of the decking. The business owner did not charge the consumer for the workThe consumer then paid for the front at a discounted rate and signed a Certificate of Completion at the end of the job.The consumer is now trying to sue the insurance company. The insurance company is blaming the business for providing the wrong code. The business owner disputes this, because the Building Department, consumer and two State Farm officials were all present when the codes were provided
I have contacted Mr*** about his complaint regarding payments made for services renderedI supplied Mr.*** with all paperwork showing insurance companies agreed amount paid for my mitigationAll work supported with pics on file with insurance and the insurance paid per scopeMr.*** has made accusations as his insurance company paid exact amount per our scope of workPayments were made to Mr.*** for interior repairs and mitigation workWe received mitigation money per our agreement. Dan M*** RFD Services
1) agreed signed contract based on insurance scope for a wind claim. Contract signed on insurance agreement. Signed agreement/insurance scope have no “chimney cap” included. This was a wind damage claim and wind does not blow off cement chimney caps. No records or attached additional work order signed for additional cement chimney work in file. There accusations are false and incorrect z copies of insurance scope and signed contract have be emailed for proof.2) certificates of satisfaction are either signed , emailed using pics for supporting evidence. Final payments were made per agreed insurance scope and contract and Rfd Services was paid (with exception to $1000 deductible which they are supposed to pay to me ) were made therefore satisfaction was shown. 3) accusations on Rfd being the cause for denied Roof sheathing have been satisfied and proven false with evidence of emails from the [redacted]’s stating ** [redacted] summit county bldg. Dept about codes and permit being failed per enforced code. 4) insurance scope paid for chimney flashing’s and Rfd shows picture evidence shows we completed the flashing and fulfilled agreement to satisfaction 5) gutter guards were paid 373.27 to remove and re-install. Rfd removed gutter guards. So half work completed. $186.64 remains. However homeowners were informed the brittle old gutter guards could not be installed and were requested to purchase new due to breaks. New guards never purchased by homeowners so they were not installed. Now 9 months later this has become an issue. Rfd Services was never paid $1000 deductible and also upgraded shingles to lifetime valued over $1200 and also installed rear upper slope at no charge after insurance denied or retracted verbal approval. I have satisfied all contractual agreements and walked away happy however some customers can not be happy or look for anything to “get ahead”. There accusations/complaint are slanderous and hold no credibility per of signed agreement. Please call me to discuss [redacted] Thanks Dan M[redacted] RFD Services [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
One last point of clarification that I want added to the record....
Before I get phone calls from attorney’s in regards to slander as was mentioned this morning, I will not accept nor close this case until I have another Mitigation Company verify that everything was done per the signed contract. A Licensed plumber verify that the soldering was done correctly and valves were installed correctly. Because there are inconsistencies on the lines items that were signed off and paid for mitigation (i.e. dumpster and man hours), it raises concerns, and I want to be sure no other shortcuts were taken.I will have this done in the next 7 to 10 business days and will also have this done at my expense.-[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Updated Nov 14th 2017 We are still rejecting RFD services response to our complaint. RFD services are again NOT addressing the fact that they did not finish the job of reinstalling the gutter guards and to re cap and mortar both the chimneys after being paid this is fraud. This is what our complaint is about not the decking. We have not asked for the $4000 dollars back we are asking for the $500 RFD services deposited from us for the Chimneys. RFD services seem more focused on bringing up irrelevant information about the decking. DECKING IS NOT THE COMPLAINT and RFD Services are wasting every body’s time by not address the complaint. Examples of this Item 1: Trying to prove the township inspectors were present (yes they were included in emails and they were called, but were never present at our home ) is irrelevant to the Chimneys and Gutter Guards. Item 2: Providing images of deck installation (AGAIN IRRELEVANT to the chimneys and Gutter Guards) We were not even asking for the $373.27 deposited for removal and re-installation of the gutter guards, which RFD services half completed (they took off the guards and never replaced, hence my picture of the guards on the floor still in previous message and figure 1). Pricing on attached state farm invoice, figure 2 Due to RFD services prolonging this process and wasting our time further we also want half of the Gutter Guard removal and installation money back $186.63. For this complaint to be resolved we need to see $686.63 deposited back to us for Chimney and Gutter Guards work never completed. WE DO NOT NEED TO SEE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE DECKING.
The complaint is on the edge of slanderous. The only signed agreement we have is for the mitigation. Insurance took 2 months to pay me less money than I billed them. The 4500$ was for the mitigation only [redacted]. we also completed the following items that I will apply the $500 dollar personal check to. I will list them below. The additional work performed is more than the $500 paid. 1)Framing under tub around drain2) new bathroom drain assembly installed 3) 2 faucet replacements (bathroom)4) 4 water supply lines 5) 16 linear foot 1/2 cooper supply lines6)Shower facet and head7)Remove and install access panel for shower faucet The 7 items listed above were outside of mitigation and were in addition to. I will forward emails from insurance stating that the 4500$ was agreed on to pay mitigation. I will call you to discuss. Dan [redacted]