San Diego Flood Restoration

We are saddened to see that [redacted] is not maintaining a level of transparency in his complaintHe sent us an email with almost the same information/complaint at 11:am 05/19/which we responded to at 12:pm 05/19/We have attached it for reference as some of our response will be duplicative to both the Revdex.com and [redacted] The walk through has been confirmed as a miscommunication and clerical errorThe “signature” [redacted] says is on the paper is not a signature; it was the initials of the Property Manager made by our technician This is an internal document he used to document who he did a walk through with and what was inspectedWhen the technician was asked by the secretary if the walk through occurred he replied yes, the owner and secretary presumed that all work was accepted We are not denying that the customer was not happy with some thingsWhen the secretary talked with the tech however she presumed the walk through was deemed approved by the Property Manager, when in fact it was not She made this assumption when she saw the techs notes We are not disputing [redacted] in that he and or his Property Manager had issues [redacted] was provided an estimate in the amount of $5,per Section of the Residential Service AgreementAgain, [redacted] has failed to provide the full language of the section which states: “The customer named above (“Customer”) hereby agrees to pay Contractor the cost of the Work (the “Contract Price”), presently estimated at Fiftyfour hundred Dollars ($5400.00), as set forth in the attached EstimateThe Estimate is an approximation made in good faith based on currently available information from an initial visual observation and is subject to change based on conditions discovered later Customer acknowledges that there may be hidden contamination or other issues that were not discovered at the time the Estimate was prepared, and that current conditions may make it impossible for Contractor to render a precise quotation of the cost and scope of repairs before commencing workCustomer will be responsible for water, electrical, and utility charges.” Also for the record, SDFR would like to state that we did not prepare the repair invoice [redacted] ’s insurance agent prepared the invoice and sent it to [redacted] who then sent it to usSDFR has provided the invoice we sent [redacted] This invoice includes the EMS, Repair, Change Order and Pack Out/In totals [redacted] original total for the repair work invoice provided by his adjustor was $9,Of that total, SDFR only invoiced for $4,198.21, well over 50% less than his total invoice SDFR was never presented a written work order from [redacted] or [redacted] indicating where the installation of the flooring was to take place Furthermore, [redacted] has confirmed that he breeched his contract by having [redacted] install the flooring on March 28, and not cancelling SDFR (which was contracted for the flooring) until March 29, SDFR has never stated that a cancellation order requires both parties signaturesWe have stated that change orders do SDFR provided [redacted] ’s insurance adjustor the Tender of Assignment and signed Residential Service Agreement in which, by signing, [redacted] did indeed authorize his insurance company to insert SDFR as a payee The language to support this can be found under Section 32, above SDFR’s signature line titled “NOTICE TO INSURANCE COMPANY-ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM-COVENANT OF PAYMENT” SDFR is simply exercising their full right to payment and right to collect said payment In regards to the prep work and [redacted] ’s claim that this is the first time he heard it was complete before cancellation, SDFR would like to state that this is 100% false This was brought up during his minute phone conversation with [redacted] She advised him at that time that the work was completed before the cancellation His reply to that was something along the lines of “Why was I not called to be notified of prep work?” She then stated that prep work was part of the working process and begins when that phase of the project is reached [redacted] is also 100% in his statement that paint specs for the downstairs bathroom were never discussedThe attached paint schedule does include the paint information for the bathroom and has [redacted] ’s signatureAgain, [redacted] is incorrect in his statement that “the approved paint schedule never included the bathroom” and that “at no time were bathroom paint specs discussed” SDFR has not invoiced [redacted] for painting the bathroom since we did not paint the bathroomWe invoiced for the baseboards, which was approved by [redacted] SDFR has once again reviewed [redacted] ’s file and disputesThough provided photographic evidence of the prep work, in an effort to put this matter to rest SDFR will close the invoice in the amount of $ per his desired settlement request made April 28, However, as [redacted] has confirmed his breech of contract we will be invoicing for the $SDFR respects [redacted] ’s right to cancelAs a fellow business owner, we hope [redacted] can respect the fact that we will be invoicing for the amount of our loss caused by his breech A response to this offer is required by 12:PM (noon) Pacific Time Tuesday May 27, Our office will be closed in observance of Memorial Day on May 26,

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowAt this point I will no longer continue to address the growing list of inconsistencies, constant deflection, and overall lack of integrity by San Diego Flood Restoration (SDFR)Even with the selective memory loss and continued runaround by SDFR the facts of this dispute are very obviousIf SDFR would spend more time communicating with their clients instead of treating them like prey and exploiting the situation this billing dispute would have been resolved over a month agoInstead, SDFR has resorted to deceptive and misleading tactics in a ongoing effort to intimidate in hopes that we would back down and pay the frivolous chargesI have spent countless hours trying to peacefully resolve this dispute and I continue to stand firm by my claims As for the contract breech, this is absurdThis is the first mention of any such thing from SDFR, it’s apparent that SDFR is once again trying to manipulate the situationI personally spoke with [redacted] about the flooring (prior to us hiring a third party contractor) and [redacted] mentioned that he had no issues with us using an outside vendor since the markup was minimal and SDFR wouldn’t make much profit If necessary, I will present my case in small claims court and let a judge have the final decision as it relates to the outcome Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have decided to reject arbitration via Revdex.com for complaint ID *** as we are pursuing this issue with the CA Contractors State License BoardIf SDFR continues to press this issue we are prepared to present our case to the court of the law and let a judge decide the final outcome.
Regards,
*** ***

*** *** *** ***Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint
Unfortunately, the reason we had to cancel our project originally with SDFR is because *** and representatives of SDFR have been misleading, dishonest and have blatantly lied throughout our dealingSDFR has many inconsistencies in the response to our ongoing disputeIt's unfortunate that SDFR continues to deflect when there are obvious oversights on the behalf of their representatives
SDFR continues to reference the RSA (Restoration Service Agreement)As it relates to the Restoration Service Agreement (RSA), the only two rooms SDFR had approval to work in were the LR (living room) and lower bedroom (see page of the contract)The estimated total contract price given was $5,not $9,which was the final invoiced amountSDFR did not completed any of the flooring or baseboards and was not given approval to do any additional reconstruction work beyond the paintingBased on the contract, SDFR’s invoiced amount should be significantly lessAs SDFR has repeatedly mentioned, if change orders require signatures by both parties for approval, SDFR took it upon themselves to complete work that is well outside the scope of what the agreement entailsHowever, I have made no issue with this and have only contested work that was completed after the project was cancelled or work that was never performed
In addition to completing work that was never approved (after the contract was cancelled) SDFR also billed for work that was never completed as I originally mentioned in the submitted disputeOne example, the wood flooring was previously installed in the bedroom closet downstairs prior to your claim of installing carpetThe wood flooring was installed on Friday, March by *** *** you claimed to have the original carpet reinstalled on 4/1/However, you have adamantly denied this obvious fact
In reference to the closet under the stairs *** *** had left enough material onsite to complete the wood flooring installation in this particular closet (SDFR was aware of this)This was to be completed when *** *** came back to install the baseboards and T-Molding stripsWithout notice or approval (and after the contract was cancelled) SDFR had the original carpet reinstalled in this closet on 4/1/Unfortunately, *** *** then had to remove the carpet from the closet under the stairs to complete the installation of the flooring the following day.
To the contrary of what SDFR has stated, cancellation order do not have to require signatures by both partiesI have spoken with both my attorney and CA CSLB and written notification is sufficientA cancellation notice was emailed and acknowledgement was received back from SDFRThis being said, any and all work completed beyond the painting was NOT approved (i.eall items being disputed)
SDFR also provided documentation saying that our properly manager signed off on all work they claimed to completeIn fact our PM never saw, initialed or signed off on any paperwork as you’ve claimed
SDFR also provided written notification to our insurance adjuster (4/1/14) after the cancellation request, stating that I (*** ***) had explicitly instructed *** to insert SDFR as a payee in all paymentsAt no time throughout our dealing was this ever discussed or requestedIn fact, I spoke with our adjuster directly after we canceled work on our rebuild to ensure that no payment was made directly to SDFROur adjuster has shared this email thread with me and I have it on fileIn my opinion SDFR was trying to collect money for work that they obviously didn't complete (flooring, baseboards, etc.) as well as any work that they completed after the cancellation notification
As for the prep work in the bathroomThis is the first time (after numerous emails and a couple phone calls) that SDFR has stated that this prep work was completed prior to me telling them we would forgo the paintingTo the contrary of what SDFR is stating the bathroom painting was never approvedPer the email thread submitted at proof by SDFR you will see no mention or discussion of paint colors for the bathroomIn fact, we did not originally know if repainting the entire bathroom would be covered by our insurance claimIt wasn’t determined until I personally reached out to our claims adjusterOnce approved from our adjuster I personally discussed this with *** via phone and *** had stated the the bathroom really didn’t need repainted and new baseboards would cover the paint that had chipped off during removalAt this time, I told *** I would let him know how we would like to proceed as it related to the repainting the bathroomAfter weighing our options, we notified SDFR on 3/27/that we have chosen to forgo painting the bathroom and even through the reimbursement amount from our insurance company was small it would give us some extra money to work with
The approved (and working versions of the) paint schedule never included the bathroom (see submitted documentation from SDFR) and at no time (via email or phone) we’re bathroom paint specs ever discussed which would give SDFR the idea that we had decided to move forward with the prep/painting the bathroomIt’s also worth noting that in an effort to come to an amicable resolution I offered concessions that would have covered all of these said items but SDFR chose to continue to be defiant in nature
In reference to the cleaning of the floors, not only was it unsatisfactory, this work was never approvedAgain, reference the cancellation email and acceptance
The $rebate was for the dry-out services and has absolutely nothing to do with the reconstruction which are the items being disputedThis was not a concession by SDFR but a follow through on our agreementAlso, the agreement was that we would receive a $rebate/credit on the dry-outIn the event we used SDFR for the dry-out and reconstruction SDFR would offer an $rebate/creditIn the email dated 03/22/14, this was inconsistent with the conservation I previously had directly with ***At that time I responded to the email in question and brought attention to this inconsistency
The above list in not exhaustive but hopefully this will open your eyes to a few of the inconsistencies as it relates to this dispute
In the event SDFR take steps to place a mechanical lien our our property or continue to press this issue I will be left with no other option but to take SDFR to small claims court and seek full compensation for all costs and fees incurred in the processI’ve spent a great deal of time trying to reason with SDFR in hopes of resolving the obvious billing discrepancies to no avail. I will consider this dispute fully resolved if I do not receive a response by SDFR as it relates to all of the aforementioned items by Thursday, May 22,
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
At this point I will no longer continue to address the growing list of inconsistencies, constant deflection, and overall lack of integrity by San Diego Flood Restoration (SDFR). Even with the selective memory loss and continued runaround by SDFR the facts of this dispute are very obvious. If SDFR would spend more time communicating with their clients instead of treating them like prey and exploiting the situation this billing dispute would have been resolved over a month ago. Instead, SDFR has resorted to deceptive and misleading tactics in a ongoing effort to intimidate in hopes that we would back down and pay the frivolous charges. I have spent countless hours trying to peacefully resolve this dispute and I continue to stand firm by my claims.
As for the contract breech, this is absurd. This is the first mention of any such thing from SDFR, it’s apparent that SDFR is once again trying to manipulate the situation. I personally spoke with [redacted] about the flooring (prior to us hiring a third party contractor) and [redacted] mentioned that he had no issues with us using an outside vendor since the markup was minimal and SDFR wouldn’t make much profit.
If necessary, I will present my case in small claims court and let a judge have the final decision as it relates to the outcome.
Regards,
[redacted]

DEAR
Revdex.com,
 
sans-serif;">This
is in response to Mrs. [redacted] complaint:
 
Her
complaint has already been processed through both our bond company and the
CSLB.  We have paid Mrs. [redacted] in full as did our bond company.
 
We
still do not fully agree with Mrs. [redacted] however to close this matter we
apologized to Mrs. [redacted] for our flooring installation error and paid her
claim in full. 
 
This
matter is closed.

We are saddened to see that [redacted] is not maintaining a
level of transparency in his complaint. He sent us an email with almost the
same information/complaint at 11:07 am 05/19/2014 which we responded to at
12:25 pm 05/19/2014. We have attached it for reference as some of our response
will be duplicative to both the Revdex.com and [redacted].
The walk through has been confirmed as a miscommunication
and clerical error. The “signature” [redacted] says is on the paper is not a signature;
it was the initials of the Property Manager made by our technician.  This is an internal document he used to
document who he did a walk through with and what was inspected. When the
technician was asked by the secretary if the walk through occurred he replied
yes, the owner and secretary presumed that all work was accepted.  We are not denying that the customer was not
happy with some things. When the secretary talked with the tech however she
presumed the walk through was deemed approved by the Property Manager, when in
fact it was not.  She made this
assumption when she saw the techs notes.  We are not disputing [redacted] in that he
and or his Property Manager had issues.   
 
[redacted] was provided an estimate in the amount of $5,400.00 per Section 5 of the
Residential Service Agreement. Again, [redacted] has failed to provide the
full language of the section which states:
“The customer named
above (“Customer”) hereby agrees to pay Contractor the cost of the Work (the
“Contract Price”), presently estimated at Fiftyfour hundred Dollars ($5400.00),
as set forth in the attached Estimate. The Estimate is an approximation made in
good faith based on currently available information from an initial visual
observation and is subject to change based on conditions discovered later.
Customer acknowledges that there may be hidden contamination or other issues
that were not discovered at the time the Estimate was prepared, and that
current conditions may make it impossible for Contractor to render a precise
quotation of the cost and scope of repairs before commencing work. Customer
will be responsible for water, electrical, and utility charges.”
 
Also for the record, SDFR would like to state that we did not prepare the repair invoice.
[redacted]’s insurance agent prepared the invoice and sent it to [redacted]
who then sent it to us. SDFR has provided the invoice we sent [redacted]. This
invoice includes the EMS, Repair, Change Order and Pack Out/In totals. [redacted] original total for the repair work invoice provided by his adjustor
was $9,756.15. Of that total, SDFR only invoiced for $4,198.21, well over 50%
less than his total invoice.
SDFR was never presented a written work order from [redacted] or [redacted] indicating where the installation of the flooring was to take
place.
Furthermore, [redacted] has confirmed that he breeched his
contract by having [redacted] install the flooring on March 28, 2014 and not
cancelling SDFR (which was contracted for the flooring) until March 29, 2014.
SDFR has never stated that a cancellation order requires
both parties signatures. We have stated that change orders do.
SDFR provided [redacted]’s insurance adjustor the Tender of
Assignment and signed Residential Service Agreement in which, by signing, [redacted] did indeed authorize his insurance company to insert SDFR as a payee.
The language to support this can be found under Section 32, above SDFR’s
signature line titled “NOTICE TO INSURANCE COMPANY-ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM-COVENANT
OF PAYMENT”.  SDFR is simply exercising
their full right to payment and right to collect said payment.
In regards to the prep work and [redacted]’s claim that
this is the first time he heard it was complete before cancellation, SDFR would
like to state that this is 100% false.
This was brought up during his 40 minute phone conversation with [redacted]. She
advised him at that time that the work was completed before the cancellation.
His reply to that was something along the lines of “Why was I not called to be
notified of prep work?” She then stated that prep work was part of the normal working process and begins when that phase of the project is reached.  [redacted] is also 100% false
in his statement that paint specs for the downstairs bathroom were never
discussed. The attached paint schedule does include the paint
information for the  bathroom and has [redacted]’s signature. Again,
[redacted] is incorrect in his statement that “the approved paint schedule
never included the bathroom” and that “at no time were bathroom paint specs
discussed”. 
SDFR has not
invoiced [redacted] for painting the bathroom since we did not paint the
bathroom. We invoiced for the baseboards, which was approved by [redacted].
SDFR has once again reviewed [redacted]’s file and
disputes. Though provided photographic evidence of the prep work, in an effort
to put this matter to rest SDFR will close the invoice in the amount of $861.59
per his desired settlement request made April 28, 2014.
However, as [redacted] has confirmed his breech of contract
we will be invoicing for the $987.77. SDFR respects [redacted]’s right to
cancel. As a fellow business owner, we hope [redacted] can respect the fact
that we will be invoicing for the amount of our loss caused by his breech.
 
A response to this offer is required by 12:00 PM (noon) Pacific Time Tuesday May 27, 2014. Our office will be closed in observance of Memorial Day on May 26, 2014.