Ultimate Abatement, Inc.

Ultimate Abatement failed to conduct lead abatement work at our home according to state lead abatement standards. The work later failed inspections.In March 2014 we moved out of our home to have significant lead abatement work performed which included sanding lead paint from floors, encapsulating leaded paint surfaces, and removing doors for stripping and reinstallation.The problems began before we moved back into the house. Workers were careless with sloppy painting, dripping all over adjacent surfaces. They tossed cigarette butts all over our yard. They failed to adequately remove paint from some floor surfaces. Worst, we found that they had been dumping dirty buckets of leaded mop water from their cleanup right into our front yard!In late April we moved back in to the house to find that some surfaces hadn't been cleaned up at all and were covered in layers of lead-containing dust. We also found that workers left dozens of staples used to hang plastic sheeting in the wood trim and walls. When we asked them to remove the staples they haphazardly ripped them out, threw them on the floor, and left the lead paint underneath chipped and exposed.The contractor also missed areas that should have been stripped of lead paint and were specifically listed on the lead assessment report including an entire door way.The drywall compound that they applied to our plaster walls was sloppy and they didn't bother to sand the drywall compound so that it was ready for painting until we specifically pointed out the worst spots and asked that they be sanded.The real problems surfaced about 4 weeks after we had moved back into our house and found that both of our young children's blood lead levels were elevated to levels higher than ever before. It was obvious that the work that was conducted at our property was the culprit.At this point the MA State Dept. of Public Health became involved because of the health risk to our children and a Post-Compliance Inspection Report revealed that the work conducted did not adequately treat most of the leaded surfaces. There was sufficient concern by the Dept. of Public Health to makea formal referral to Department of Labor Standards regarding the workperformed by Ultimate Abatement.The Dept. of Public Health encouraged Ultimate Abatement to refund some of the cost of remedying the failed encapsulant work. The contractor has failed to respond in any meaningful way to that suggestion and has been uncooperative.From written communications from the Dept. of Public Health to Ultimate Abatement: "There are so many loose surfaces identified, I am concerned as to why encapsulation was even presented as a viable option to the owner. Based on this report alone, I would never have advised an owner to use an encapsulant in a home where there is so evidently an adhesion issue.""Encapsulants were applied to surfaces that were not verified as being made intact. In addition, encapsulants were applied in a unit where dust wipes had not yet been taken. Both a significant breach in the inspection and deleading protocol."Desired SettlementGiven the fact that our home is still not in compliance and is not much safer for our children, after having spent well over $30,000 with Ultimate Abatement, we would expect a refund for those treated surface which later failed the inspection. I would expect a fair refund based on the failed surfaces that were treated by Ultimate Abatement.Business Response Ultimate Abatement is a licensed lead abatement contractor and was hired through the [redacted] County Housing Authority and the [redacted] Housing Finance Agency.When Ultimate Abatement first looked at this project the State Department of Public Health was already involved, due to the elevated blood levels of the children living there. The State DPH conducted the initial lead paint inspection of the property in 2012. The Owner had been performing his own renovations, including window replacements, and this had most likely caused to the children's elevated blood lead levels. The Owner then was required to hire a fully licensed lead paint contractor to complete work in his house, but he also took a class to become a moderate risk deleader, thereby still able to perform some of the work himself. Although the family had moved out of the house when work was going on, the Owner himself was returning on weekends to do work on the house. At one point when Ultimate's crew came to work, the entire kitchen ceiling had been demolished by the Owner, creating dust and debris which we had to clean up later while doing our own work. When I spoke to the State inspector, he told me that I could not keep the Owner out of the house, since he had taken the State moderate risk training. After Ultimate's work under the contract was completed, a final inspection by the State inspector was conducted and the work was passed. Dust samples were collected and passed, and a Certificate of Compliance should have been issued by that state inspector.Since the Owner still had some punch list items concerning paint drips, staples, etc. the Ultimate crew returned to the property several times to address these items, even though the work was completed, because we wanted him to be happy. We left after the final meeting with him on good terms in the early Spring of 2014. I did not hear anything subsequent, until I got a call from a DPH inspector in December of 2014, telling me that that there was something wrong with the project. I asked her to send me any information such as inspection results, or photos about the problem. She did not send me anything, but asked me to give the Owner back some money towards the painting on the first floor. I told her that I would need to see it for myself, and was told that the Owner did not want me in his house, and that I should just offer him a credit. I did send the Owner an email, but his response seemed to express a problem with the entire job, not just a defect which could be corrected.I checked my Contract, which states that the Owner is supposed to notify Ultimate in writing as to defects in the workmanship, so they can be corrected. I was not notified or did not have any opportunity to see any of the defects first hand, and was not given any opportunity to correct any such defects. I contacted the State DPH lead inspector who had personally conducted the final inspection in the Spring of 2014, and he verified that upon his inspection, everything was in Compliance.