Sign in

Unified Insulation Systems, LLC

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Unified Insulation Systems, LLC? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Unified Insulation Systems, LLC

Unified Insulation Systems, LLC Reviews (4)

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/07/14) */ Someone had worked on the cracked wall before we were called to the home, we did inject the cracked wall again for the homeowner and have been back times to inject this area again to try and solve the water issue, on one of our trips out the H.Otold us of a material spot on floor, we showed our material (color doesn't match that of material on floor) we suggested that the first person to work on the area may have done this as our material is transported carefully in and out of the home in plastic bags and wrapped tightlyUnified has questioned all persons (2)that worked at this site and has determined it is not our issueWe feel due to the material that was first applied (not by us) this may be the issue with water leakage? The customer is irritated due to multiple trips to site (paid COD for work and now is blaming us for damages someone else did),Unified's intention wasn't to bill for extra trips (and hasn't) just try to be part of the solutionUnified has gone above and beyond for this customer Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/07/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) There are several "facts" in dispute in this situationThe response by Unified ignores all objective evidence that has been presented and substitutes a weak attempt at deflection of the issue The attempted blaming of a previous attempt to fix the wall in causing the problem ignores the facts and substitutes the word of the worker that obviously caused the damage by his negligence The facts: The previous attempts to fix the wall were performed prior to painting the walls and the installation of the carpetLogically, this would make it impossible for that epoxy to have been dripped on the carpet and the wallThis fact seems to be overly complicated for the Unified representatives to understand but unless they have invented a time machine, it is not possible that the damage occurred in the way they suggest The unified representatives seem to rely on the color of the epoxy not matching as their primary defenseThis color argument again ignores all physical evidence to the contrary of their positionThe epoxy on the walls is brown in color matching the epoxy sample provided by the workman during the second repair attemptAdditionally, the workman dripped samples of the epoxy on a carpet remnant and hardwood samplesGiven the blue color of the carpet, the semi-opaque epoxy has a bluish appearance on the carpet sampleThis exactly matches the appearance on the basement carpet spotsNo amount of hand waving by Unified changes the fact that the sample spots and the basement damage are in fact the same materialThis is also true of the hardwood damage caused by the company Suggesting that it is to use a plastic bag to transport the material in no way provides evidence that the workman followed procedure during this workIn fact, there are several facts pointing to the lack of procedure following during this entire jobTo use what the workman is supposed to do as a defense is laughable given the quality of the workmanship and the unprofessionalism demonstrated by the organization to date In the end we contracted with the organization to fix the crack in the wall, to suggest that the second attempt was done as a courtesy to us is ridiculousThe other two visits were to inspect the damage caused by Unified, and seemingly to attempt to find excuses to avoid taking responsibility for their incompetenceTo suggest that this was done as a favor to us and "Unified's intention wasn't to bill for extra trips (and hasn't) just try to be part of the solution" is laughable given that we still have a leaking wall and a damaged basementWe would have been much better off having never allowed these "professionals" into our home Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 9, 2015/07/24) */ We have had the highest standings with the Revdex.comOur track record speaks for itself Customer told our technician, while on site, that this area had been worked on by other company/individuals before usPer the homeowner the product used before we worked there was a Hilti brand which is a blue product that is the same color that damaged homeowners propertyWe do not use that particular product Our people say that this is not our material that damaged property and the customer says that it isThere would have to be proof that it is our material before resolution In regards to the water problem: This was worked on before we got thereIt hindered our product from being successful to stopping leakThe exterior of this wall is not accessible(i.esiding, steps etc.) We have shown good faith and been there numerous times to try to help customer

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/12) */
We did work for *** *** but we did not hear anything about any problems with our work which was completed on 6/25/until 7/31/at this time we called the customer and she said we cracked a ceiling (that we insulated) but she had it
repaired before we knew of any issues and the repair was not satisfactory for herUnified (because damaged area was worked on by someone) didn't see it before it was repaired (everything was fine when we finished work) so we do not believe it is our issue and how can we be responsible for something that we supposedly damaged that we never had a chance to look at before another company/person repaired it? Talking directly about the home owners claim that see tried to reach us nobody here (at Unified) heard anything about this concern until 7/31/and she received a call from us the next business day 8/3/to discuss the issue
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/18) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I called *** right after work was completedthey said someone would be out to check the jobI had an apptw/ *** and no one showed upI called them again ,they gave me a new apptwhen *** person showed up he documented the crackthe company should come to my home and see damage themselves instead of passing the buck
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/08/25) */
Unified Construction cannot be responsible for something that we did not see before the homeowner had attempted to repair supposed damage, because homeowner could not wait until *** (company Unified was contracted with) came out and seen ceiling and she took action (then wasn't happy with repair)how can we be responsible, we were never given opportunity to see ceiling before it was repaired nothing was visible or a problem when we completed the project, now after someone else screwed it up she wants us to repair it,this isn't the way to place blame after the factWe completed this work on 6/25/started project 6/22/(at this time our crew lead introduces himself with a paper with our company name and office number on it and gives to the homeowner for their records) why didn't homeowner call us, we never heard anything from her, *** informed us on 7/31/and told us someone had already attempted repair and performed a poor jobHomeowner should have the person who preformed repaired take care of their problem

Good Afternoon, I have had the opportunity to review this complaint and to speak to the manager of our Weatherization divisionIn regards to the cracked siding at the *** Residence, we are aware of the fact that some of the siding was cracked by our employees, it was also noted that some of
the siding was already cracked as well prior to us performing the work.This work was completed at the end of December, the 22nd thru the 29th, from all indications of the records that I have reviewed.Regardless, Unified pries on having satisfied customers and making things right if we mess something upOur intentions are to replace the siding that we cracked while performing our scope of workWe have not completed this work as of yet due to the fluctuating temperaturesMost of the temps up till this week have been considerably coldWe don't want to risk damaging any further siding trying to make repairs in the cold temperaturesInstalling siding in the cold temps are not the best, when installed in the cold the siding is tight and fragile and further prone to cracking do to the cold. We have this on our radar to repair and plan to do such once we have consistently warmer temperaturesWe will have this completed by April 01, The ***s are more than welcome to contact our office at any time to discuss further as well. Best Regards,Jason H***President

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/14) */
Someone had worked on the cracked wall before we were called to the home, we did inject the cracked wall again for the homeowner and have been back 4 times to inject this area again to try and solve the water issue, on one of our trips out the...

H.O. told us of a material spot on floor, we showed our material (color doesn't match that of material on floor) we suggested that the first person to work on the area may have done this as our material is transported carefully in and out of the home in plastic bags and wrapped tightly. Unified has questioned all persons (2)that worked at this site and has determined it is not our issue. We feel due to the material that was first applied (not by us) this may be the issue with water leakage? The customer is irritated due to multiple trips to site (paid COD for work and now is blaming us for damages someone else did),Unified's intention wasn't to bill for extra trips (and hasn't) just try to be part of the solution. Unified has gone above and beyond for this customer
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/07/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
There are several "facts" in dispute in this situation. The response by Unified ignores all objective evidence that has been presented and substitutes a weak attempt at deflection of the issue.
The attempted blaming of a previous attempt to fix the wall in causing the problem ignores the facts and substitutes the word of the worker that obviously caused the damage by his negligence.
The facts:
1. The previous attempts to fix the wall were performed prior to painting the walls and the installation of the carpet. Logically, this would make it impossible for that epoxy to have been dripped on the carpet and the wall. This fact seems to be overly complicated for the Unified representatives to understand but unless they have invented a time machine, it is not possible that the damage occurred in the way they suggest.
2. The unified representatives seem to rely on the color of the epoxy not matching as their primary defense. This color argument again ignores all physical evidence to the contrary of their position. The epoxy on the walls is brown in color matching the epoxy sample provided by the workman during the second repair attempt. Additionally, the workman dripped samples of the epoxy on a carpet remnant and hardwood samples. Given the blue color of the carpet, the semi-opaque epoxy has a bluish appearance on the carpet sample. This exactly matches the appearance on the basement carpet spots. No amount of hand waving by Unified changes the fact that the sample spots and the basement damage are in fact the same material. This is also true of the hardwood damage caused by the company.
3. Suggesting that it is normal to use a plastic bag to transport the material in no way provides evidence that the workman followed procedure during this work. In fact, there are several facts pointing to the lack of procedure following during this entire job. To use what the workman is supposed to do as a defense is laughable given the quality of the workmanship and the unprofessionalism demonstrated by the organization to date.
4. In the end we contracted with the organization to fix the crack in the wall, to suggest that the second attempt was done as a courtesy to us is ridiculous. The other two visits were to inspect the damage caused by Unified, and seemingly to attempt to find excuses to avoid taking responsibility for their incompetence. To suggest that this was done as a favor to us and "Unified's intention wasn't to bill for extra trips (and hasn't) just try to be part of the solution" is laughable given that we still have a leaking wall and a damaged basement. We would have been much better off having never allowed these "professionals" into our home.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/07/24) */
We have had the highest standings with the Revdex.com. Our track record speaks for itself.
Customer told our technician, while on site, that this area had been worked on by other company/individuals before us. Per the homeowner the product used before we worked there was a Hilti brand which is a blue product that is the same color that damaged homeowners property. We do not use that particular product.
Our people say that this is not our material that damaged property and the customer says that it is. There would have to be proof that it is our material before resolution.
In regards to the water problem:
This was worked on before we got there. It hindered our product from being successful to stopping leak. The exterior of this wall is not accessible. (i.e. siding, steps etc.) We have shown good faith and been there numerous times to try to help customer.

Check fields!

Write a review of Unified Insulation Systems, LLC

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Unified Insulation Systems, LLC Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Add contact information for Unified Insulation Systems, LLC

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated