opportunity to defend ourselves against the complaint [redacted] has filed against our company. To our recollection, this is the first complaint of this nature to the Revdex.com in our 32+ years of being accredited. Our company has been in business since 1970, and has the same owner, [redacted]
Our reputation with our customers and our community are very important to us, so receiving notice of a complaint filed against us is very upsetting. However, the complaint filed does not contain factual information. [redacted] states "the insurance company paid [redacted] $12,500 for their service", but we have not been able to obtain payment for the work we completed to date.
Another issue she cites is "there is still mold on the walls and the house is musty". We were contracted for a water mitigation due to a water line break in a portion of the Basement. Mold remediation was not within the scope of work we were contracted to complete for [redacted] We did, however, complete the scope of work we were hired to do, and did so according to the international industry standards. When performing services for a job of this nature, we are required to follow these standards.
We are hereby disputing the settlement [redacted] desires, as we do not feel it is valid. If you would like any additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Office Manager
To Whom It May Concern:
Our company has had a chance to review the response by [redacted] While our reputation is very important, we still disagree with the allegations and accusation being made.
The allegations presented in the letter are false. Mr. Shoup did not say what [redacted] alleges in several instances. We adhered to the contracted work, and stand behind this.
We are hereby disputing the settlement [redacted] desires, as we do not feel it is valid. If you would like any additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact us.
[redacted]
Office Manager
Shoup's Cleaning Company, Inc.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint [redacted] and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
First and foremost, according to t[redacted] office, ours is not the only complaint filed against Shoup's Cleaning Co.
Secondly, there are some, questions about "industry standards" mentioned in Shoup's letter of August 6, 2014. These questions will be addressed in the following paragraphs.
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to only do what they have time to do or only what they think needs done? To quote Doyle Shoup:. "We are very busy ... we will try to do what we think needs done." Protocol demands that throughout remediation, efforts are to be directed towards secondary damage and attention to structural components, such as drywall, insulation, laminate flooring, carpet, built-in cabinetry and structural wood. Industry standards require a cut be made into drywall where water damage is suspected. This was done in the immediate area of the leak but not around to the other side of a large, open room. Paneling and baseboards were not removed to check for wet drywall, insulation or studding, despite repeated questions to Shoup's about these components getting wet. See enclosed photo marked "Exhibit (1."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to leave garbage bags of wet items in the affected area? See enclosed photo marked "Exhibit 1."
Do "industry standards" require the removal of flooring and built-in cabinetry only if the customer complaints incessantly? Kitchen cabinets, a book shelf, bathroom cabinets and laminate flooring were removed weeks after the incident. See page four of the enclosed invoice marked "Exhibit 2."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to misrepresent the ozone generators as activated oxygen air cleaners? To quote Doyle Shoup: "This will only change the oxygen atoms, making them attach to odor atoms to remove them from the area and not damage anything in the home." See enclosed photos of a few personal items damaged by ozone.. "Exhibit 3" shows a piece of damaged memory foam. "Exhibit 4" shows how a raincoat was damaged by the rubber coming off. "Exhibit .5" shows the damage to a Velux blanket.
Do "industry standards" require installing an improperly working machine in a home? To quote Doyle Shoup: "We will install two machines. The larger one upstairs will need switched out tomorrow because it needs serviced. We can't adjust it and it's squealing."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to run a toxic machine in an asthmatic's home to disguise the lack of proper remediation? Doyle Shoup was well aware of [redacted] severe asthma and allergies. To quote Doyle Shoup: "I am very familiar with your problems because my morn is the same way." See enclosed articles marked "Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, &10."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to inspect a home after weeks of complaining and Doyle Shoup to reply "I'm not gonna lie - it's still pretty strong." As a result, the carpets were cleaned again in an effort to lessen the odor. See page nine of the enclosed invoice marked "Exhibit 2."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to `Coogle' how to get rid of ozone and when the customer asks to contact the ozone generator manufacturer for the proper ozone removal protocol? When we were told that Shoup's didn't know how to remove the ozone after having the windows open for days, we contacted the manufacturing company only to be told that our house was probably overdosed on ozone and the windows should not have been opened in the extreme cold weather we were experiencing at the time. To quote Doyle Shoup: "That would have been nice to know. The only training I have on those machines is a little pamphlet."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to deny any claims of wrongdoing and shoddy service/workmanship? Shoup's Cleaning is correct in stating that it was not contracted to clean up mold nor was it contracted to create mold. The home was free of mold and musty smells before the incident and all we asked was that the home be returned to its previous state. If water remediation had been done properly and wet items removed promptly from the area, moldy and musty conditions would not be present. If there was no problem with moldy and musty conditions, why was the furniture cleaned? Why was the ozone treatment undertaken? The ozone treatment has resulted in us having to live outside our home in a camper for six months and having various health issues, such as burning eyes, throats and lungs. [redacted] suffers from hives and increased asthma distress. See photos of hives/blisters marked as "Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17." A neighbor who was in our house for about 10 minutes on August 4, 2014 suffered from a sore throat and hoarseness for nearly two weeks.
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to blame others for its lack of cooperation? [redacted] sent [redacted] a written request for copies of invoices and copies of the front and back of the check to be sent to [redacted] prior to signing. To our knowledge, that has never happened. See copy of email marked as "Exhibit 18."
Do "industry standards" require customers who have lived in their home for 16 years to be displaced because of sub-standard services?
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the claims of Shoup's Cleaning Co.
To Whom It May Concern:
We appreciate the...
opportunity to defend ourselves against the complaint [redacted] has filed against our company. To our recollection, this is the first complaint of this nature to the Revdex.com in our 32+ years of being accredited. Our company has been in business since 1970, and has the same owner, [redacted]
Our reputation with our customers and our community are very important to us, so receiving notice of a complaint filed against us is very upsetting. However, the complaint filed does not contain factual information. [redacted] states "the insurance company paid [redacted] $12,500 for their service", but we have not been able to obtain payment for the work we completed to date.
Another issue she cites is "there is still mold on the walls and the house is musty". We were contracted for a water mitigation due to a water line break in a portion of the Basement. Mold remediation was not within the scope of work we were contracted to complete for [redacted] We did, however, complete the scope of work we were hired to do, and did so according to the international industry standards. When performing services for a job of this nature, we are required to follow these standards.
We are hereby disputing the settlement [redacted] desires, as we do not feel it is valid. If you would like any additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Office Manager
To Whom It May Concern:
Our company has had a chance to review the response by [redacted] While our reputation is very important, we still disagree with the allegations and accusation being made.
The allegations presented in the letter are false. Mr. Shoup did not say what [redacted] alleges in several instances. We adhered to the contracted work, and stand behind this.
We are hereby disputing the settlement [redacted] desires, as we do not feel it is valid. If you would like any additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact us.
[redacted]
Office Manager
Shoup's Cleaning Company, Inc.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint [redacted] and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
First and foremost, according to t[redacted] office, ours is not the only complaint filed against Shoup's Cleaning Co.
Secondly, there are some, questions about "industry standards" mentioned in Shoup's letter of August 6, 2014. These questions will be addressed in the following paragraphs.
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to only do what they have time to do or only what they think needs done? To quote Doyle Shoup:. "We are very busy ... we will try to do what we think needs done." Protocol demands that throughout remediation, efforts are to be directed towards secondary damage and attention to structural components, such as drywall, insulation, laminate flooring, carpet, built-in cabinetry and structural wood. Industry standards require a cut be made into drywall where water damage is suspected. This was done in the immediate area of the leak but not around to the other side of a large, open room. Paneling and baseboards were not removed to check for wet drywall, insulation or studding, despite repeated questions to Shoup's about these components getting wet. See enclosed photo marked "Exhibit (1."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to leave garbage bags of wet items in the affected area? See enclosed photo marked "Exhibit 1."
Do "industry standards" require the removal of flooring and built-in cabinetry only if the customer complaints incessantly? Kitchen cabinets, a book shelf, bathroom cabinets and laminate flooring were removed weeks after the incident. See page four of the enclosed invoice marked "Exhibit 2."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to misrepresent the ozone generators as activated oxygen air cleaners? To quote Doyle Shoup: "This will only change the oxygen atoms, making them attach to odor atoms to remove them from the area and not damage anything in the home." See enclosed photos of a few personal items damaged by ozone.. "Exhibit 3" shows a piece of damaged memory foam. "Exhibit 4" shows how a raincoat was damaged by the rubber coming off. "Exhibit .5" shows the damage to a Velux blanket.
Do "industry standards" require installing an improperly working machine in a home? To quote Doyle Shoup: "We will install two machines. The larger one upstairs will need switched out tomorrow because it needs serviced. We can't adjust it and it's squealing."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to run a toxic machine in an asthmatic's home to disguise the lack of proper remediation? Doyle Shoup was well aware of [redacted] severe asthma and allergies. To quote Doyle Shoup: "I am very familiar with your problems because my morn is the same way." See enclosed articles marked "Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, &10."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to inspect a home after weeks of complaining and Doyle Shoup to reply "I'm not gonna lie - it's still pretty strong." As a result, the carpets were cleaned again in an effort to lessen the odor. See page nine of the enclosed invoice marked "Exhibit 2."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to `Coogle' how to get rid of ozone and when the customer asks to contact the ozone generator manufacturer for the proper ozone removal protocol? When we were told that Shoup's didn't know how to remove the ozone after having the windows open for days, we contacted the manufacturing company only to be told that our house was probably overdosed on ozone and the windows should not have been opened in the extreme cold weather we were experiencing at the time. To quote Doyle Shoup: "That would have been nice to know. The only training I have on those machines is a little pamphlet."
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to deny any claims of wrongdoing and shoddy service/workmanship? Shoup's Cleaning is correct in stating that it was not contracted to clean up mold nor was it contracted to create mold. The home was free of mold and musty smells before the incident and all we asked was that the home be returned to its previous state. If water remediation had been done properly and wet items removed promptly from the area, moldy and musty conditions would not be present. If there was no problem with moldy and musty conditions, why was the furniture cleaned? Why was the ozone treatment undertaken? The ozone treatment has resulted in us having to live outside our home in a camper for six months and having various health issues, such as burning eyes, throats and lungs. [redacted] suffers from hives and increased asthma distress. See photos of hives/blisters marked as "Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17." A neighbor who was in our house for about 10 minutes on August 4, 2014 suffered from a sore throat and hoarseness for nearly two weeks.
Do "industry standards" require Shoup's to blame others for its lack of cooperation? [redacted] sent [redacted] a written request for copies of invoices and copies of the front and back of the check to be sent to [redacted] prior to signing. To our knowledge, that has never happened. See copy of email marked as "Exhibit 18."
Do "industry standards" require customers who have lived in their home for 16 years to be displaced because of sub-standard services?
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the claims of Shoup's Cleaning Co.