ServiceMaster Fire and Water Restoration

I believe there is some miscommunication involved in this complaint The customer did call our office after hours and did speak with one of our lead technicians about his water damage Our lead technicians did tell the customer someone would call him back in the morning to schedule an appointment, but did not promise service the next day The customer called back a couple of time early morning, but our daily schedule had not been finalized Our Water Restoration Manager did speak to the customer after our morning technician meeting where the scheduling is finalized and informed him that we had 2-jobs ahead of him and we could be out that evening or the next dayThe customer then told our Water Restoration Manager that we were running a racket and cursed at himOur Water Restoration Manager ended the call because he did not want to argue with the customer

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:This company did not perform as they said they would. ***, whom I had spoken with the night before did tell me the next morning that they would be able to work for me that day, but neither he nor anyone else had the decency to call me back-I had to call them and then they said it would be next day or later. They can't be trusted to keep their word, and therefore should not be used. Sincerely, [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/14) */
The customer requested we come to his home to perform water mitigation services due to the heavy rainsHe was on our waiting list and when his name came up he was out of the countryWe needed to get our Authorization to Repair and Payment,
Release of Belongings, and Anti-Microbial consent signed before we could start work in his homeOur company policy is that we do not perform any work in a customer's home without their signature on the Authorization form because it gives us authorization to perform work in their homeWe do not want to do invasive work on the customer's property without proper authorization
We had performed two other water mitigation jobs for this customer and our marketer and the insurance agency really wanted us to start mitigation for this customerWe decided to perform non-invasive mitigation without the signed authorization and after we received the signed authorization we would perform the remainder of the mitigation that was necessaryNon-invasive mitigation consists of water extraction, application of anti-microbial and setting drying equipment
We emailed the authorization to the customer for his signature and received an email back stating "I authorize all work"We cannot accept this emailed response in lieu of a signed authorization so after performing the initial mitigation we emailed him again with our estimate for the work we had done so far with days of equipment rentalWe also stated in the email that we are recommending that the carpet be removed due to severe staining and the pad be removed due to this being a CAT or gray water loss but at this time we will be drying this in placeWe requested in the email to please send back the signed authorization so we can proceed with mitigationWe continued to monitor the job while waiting for the customer to send back the signed authorization
After four days we emailed the customer again to state we had reached the four days of equipment rental and the drying equipment charges from here on will accumulateWe stated that we had not received the signed Authorization to continue with the removal of the affected pad and carpetWe also stated that with the pad in place water is bound and will not dry and a signed Authorization is required for us to lift the carpet and remove the non-salvageable pad and until we receive this document we will not be able to perform the demolitionIn this emailed we stated that if the customer did not want us to continue with the mitigation we can remove the equipment, but if he would like us to proceed with the mitigation needed we needed the Authorization emailed or faxed back to usWe did hear back from the customer via email that he believed he gave us authorization on the first day and he was surprised that the pad had not been removedHe stated he had no fax machine available and only got email one hour per dayOur marketer stated that she was told he was available via email and phone while he was out of townHe asked us to remove the equipment after the four day agreement, which we did, and a bill was prepared and sent to him
We did speak with the customer concerning the bill and the work we performed when he returnedHe was not happy that we did not perform all the necessary mitigation and stated that now the carpet was ruinedWe explained to him that we needed the signed Authorization in order to do any further mitigation and we never received it
We deemed the carpet non-salvageable when we arrived on site the first day due to severe furniture staining and because we performed minimal, non-invasive mitigation this did not cause the carpet to be ruined
We were trying to do the customer, marketer and insurance agency a favor by performing non-invasive mitigation while waiting for a signed authorizationWe very rarely have ever done thisWe will contact the customer to discuss the bill and are willing to revise some of the equipment charges
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/07/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This is ridiculous, had I ever even suspected they would not enter my home and perform the very basic standards of lifting the carpet at the edge and placing their fans there, I would have never allowed them in my homewhen I spoke with their phone rep, she stated it would have cost well over $8,for them to perform this serviceI have since spoken with another water mitigation service, *** *** *** and they reaffirmed my expectationsLifting the carpet at the edge, before placing a fan there is the only way to dry a roomIt appears their sole response for justifying their work is that they would not perform any work without an authorizationYet, I have a bill for $It appears to me they don't have authorization for that amount either
I'll be satisfied on this claim, when they admit this was a totally botched operation, and we agree to a substantial reduction in the amount, as far as I'm concerned, the only job they accomplished was extracting the water from the carpetI could have had any carpet cleaning service do the same job
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/07/20) */
There is definitely some miscommunication between the customer and our company which we apologize forWe are willing to reduce the bill and only charge for the water extraction that was performedWe will revise the bill and email it to the customer
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2015/07/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

I believe there is some miscommunication involved in this complaint.  The customer did call our office after hours and did speak with one of our lead technicians about his water damage.  Our lead technicians did tell the customer someone would call him back in the morning to schedule an...

appointment, but did not promise service the next day.  The customer called back a couple of time early morning, but our daily schedule had not been finalized.  Our Water Restoration Manager did speak to the customer after our morning technician meeting where the scheduling is finalized and informed him that we had 2-3 jobs ahead of him and we could be out that evening or the next day. The customer then told our Water Restoration Manager that we were running a racket and cursed at him. Our Water Restoration Manager ended the call because he did not want to argue with the customer.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:This company did not perform as they said they would. [redacted], whom I had spoken with the night before did tell me the next morning that they would be able to work for me that day, but neither he nor anyone else had the decency to call me back-I had to call them  and then they said it would be next day or later. They can't be trusted to keep their word, and therefore should not be used.
Sincerely,
[redacted]