Wright Way Cleaning & Restoration LLC

I always appreciate hearing customers feedback on the jobs we perform because constructive criticism helps us grow as a businessSo far, the Revdex.com has given us an A+ ratingThis is the first time we heard feedback from the customer that he had a problem with the job since we last talked to him since MayThis customer was difficult to connect with, he had large turnaround time for returning calls and he wouldn’t come out to the property to meet with me even though I made repeated attempts to work out a timeHis reasoning for the complaint has no validity, as explained belowTo clarify from my perspective, the customer called us on May 24, asking for us to assist with a water damage that occurred in his rental homeHe asked that we contact his tenant to arrange to scope the damageWe did so only to discover that there was a long list of water damage issues that had evidently been ongoing for several yearsAccording to the tenant, the landlord, ***, had chosen to neglect these issues, even after the tenants multiple attempts to get in contact with him to address the problems in her homeDue to his lack of attention to these serious issues, she was considering moving and indicated to us that she and her son were ill to the point of hospitalizationWhen we went to the house we discovered water damage in multiple areas– many of which had been ongoing for some time as indicated by the mold and rotThe customer signed our emergency service work authorization on May 25, 2017, authorizing us to do work in his homeI suggested he call his insurance company to see if they might cover some of the damages which had happenedI informed him that when mold is found in a property, some insurance carriers may not cover the loss because it can be considered home owners negligence when things are not addressed in a timely mannerAgain, the only “work” provided was the asbestos samplingThis sampling is part of our inspection assessment before we begin doing any removal of materialsThe only other help we provided was helping the tenant move her belongings to her new home, which she paid for herselfOn May 26, 2017, the customer emailed us to cancel the work order because he would not pay our costs and his insurance wouldn’t cover repairs and asked for a final billingThere were no complaints from him at this timeOn June 9, we invoiced the customer for the scope (emergency service call) and asbestos samplingHe responded on June 10, saying he did not want to pay for the sampling as the house was “post-asbestos” eraWe revised the estimate on June 14, only charging the customer for the scope and the time we spent taking the samples, and informed him that there is no such thing as a “post-asbestos” era and that taking samples is required by lawThe customer gave no response and ignored this billingOn July 28, we sent a third billing and requested that he pay it to avoid interest, collection, and/or small claims courtThe customer responded on July 31, with an email that stated, “Payment is on its way.” Interestingly, that is also the date that this complaint was filed***’s concerns are addressed below “Scaring” the customer and recommending repairs At no point did we attempt to scare the clientWe did recommend highly needed repairs and while we are not the only company that fixes these issues, we asked that we be the company to provide the repairs because he had called us out to look at them and we felt that the damages warranted an emergency responseWe aren’t here to scare people, we are here to recommend that repairs get taken care of quicklyIt’s the prerogative of the customer to decide who they want to hireIn this case he decided not to hire us to do the repairs, only to scope out the situation and take the asbestos samples Conflict of interest between the company that recommend the repairs and the company that provides the repairsWe were asked to scope out the property to make recommendations, provide an estimate, and consider doing repairs when the client first contactedAn assessment needs to be done before any repairs can be made, as is protocol for a construction jobIt’s not a conflict of interestThe reality is he never hired us to do the repairs; he only hired us to do an assessment and asbestos sampling Questioning whereabouts/Trying to increase damage In any emergency situation, especially one as severe as this, our top priority is our customers and the condition of their homeThis means we value their time, money, and their health and want to do everything in our power to fix any water damage as quickly and efficiently as possibleWe did NOT try to increase any damages in the houseThis would be inappropriate for someone who cares about fixing water damages in propertiesIn fact, the only “work” we did was to scope the damage and take sample of drywall for asbestos testing (this is required by law before any materials can be removed)It was our understanding that a plumber had already been assigned and fixed the plumbing aspects of the water damage downstairs before we came outWe never turned water on, left water on, or saw water leaking from a pipe while we were on the propertyThis simply is not true and there is no evidence to support this claim Scaring the tenant/offering legal advice Regarding the tenant, we did not “scare” her, nor did we provide her with legal adviceWhen we came to the property she was already furious with the owner because of the damages that had been neglectedWhen I saw the mold and dry rot, it did appear that things had not been addressed in a timely fashionClearly, she does not need us for evidence as she already had a myriad of photos and emails to document her claims before we were involvedShe informed us of all this on the first day we were at the house (May 24) which was well before the owner/customer terminated the work order It’s been weeks since we have talked to herToday (August 11,2017), I spoke with [redacted] on the phone and we came to an agreement that he would dismiss the complaints he has towards usAs an act of kindness, we told him we would waive the costs and send his check back despite the amount of time and energy this situation demanded from our businessHopefully this resolves our involvement with these concernsWe have an A+ rating with the Revdex.com and we intend to keep it that way

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

I always appreciate hearing customers feedback on the jobs we perform because constructive criticism helps us grow as a business. So far, the Revdex.com has given us an A+ rating. This is the first time we heard feedback from the customer that he had a problem with the job since we last talked to him...

since May. This customer was difficult to connect with, he had large turnaround time for returning calls and he wouldn’t come out to the property to meet with me even though I made repeated attempts to work out a time. His reasoning for the complaint has no validity, as explained below. To clarify from my perspective, the customer called us on May 24, 2017 asking for us to assist with a water damage that occurred in his rental home. He asked that we contact his tenant to arrange to scope the damage. We did so only to discover that there was a long list of water damage issues that had evidently been ongoing for several years. According to the tenant, the landlord, [redacted], had chosen to neglect these issues, even after the tenants multiple attempts to get in contact with him to address the problems in her home. Due to his lack of attention to these serious issues, she was considering moving and indicated to us that she and her son were ill to the point of hospitalization. When we went to the house we discovered water damage in multiple areas– many of which had been ongoing for some time as indicated by the mold and rot. The customer signed our emergency service work authorization on May 25, 2017, authorizing us to do work in his home. I suggested he call his insurance company to see if they might cover some of the damages which had happened. I informed him that when mold is found in a property, some insurance carriers may not cover the loss because it can be considered home owners negligence when things are not addressed in a timely manner. Again, the only “work” provided was the asbestos sampling. This sampling is part of our inspection assessment before we begin doing any removal of materials. The only other help we provided was helping the tenant move her belongings to her new home, which she paid for herself. On May 26, 2017, the customer emailed us to cancel the work order because he would not pay our costs and his insurance wouldn’t cover repairs and asked for a final billing. There were no complaints from him at this time. On June 9, 2017 we invoiced the customer for the scope (emergency service call) and asbestos sampling. He responded on June 10, 2017 saying he did not want to pay for the sampling as the house was “post-asbestos” era. We revised the estimate on June 14, 2017 only charging the customer for the scope and the time we spent taking the samples, and informed him that there is no such thing as a “post-asbestos” era and that taking samples is required by law. The customer gave no response and ignored this billing. On July 28, 2017 we sent a third billing and requested that he pay it to avoid interest, collection, and/or small claims court. The customer responded on July 31, 2017 with an email that stated, “Payment is on its way.” Interestingly, that is also the date that this complaint was filed. [redacted]’s concerns are addressed below. 1.       “Scaring” the customer and recommending repairs At no point did we attempt to scare the client. We did recommend highly needed repairs and while we are not the only company that fixes these issues, we asked that we be the company to provide the repairs because he had called us out to look at them and we felt that the damages warranted an emergency response. We aren’t here to scare people, we are here to recommend that repairs get taken care of quickly. It’s the prerogative of the customer to decide who they want to hire. In this case he decided not to hire us to do the repairs, only to scope out the situation and take the asbestos samples. 2.       Conflict of interest between the company that recommend the repairs and the company that provides the repairs. We were asked to scope out the property to make recommendations, provide an estimate, and consider doing repairs when the client first contacted. An assessment needs to be done before any repairs can be made, as is normal protocol for a construction job. It’s not a conflict of interest. The reality is he never hired us to do the repairs; he only hired us to do an assessment and asbestos sampling. 3.       Questioning whereabouts/Trying to increase damage In any emergency situation, especially one as severe as this, our top priority is our customers and the condition of their home. This means we value their time, money, and their health and want to do everything in our power to fix any water damage as quickly and efficiently as possible. We did NOT try to increase any damages in the house. This would be inappropriate for someone who cares about fixing water damages in properties. In fact, the only “work” we did was to scope the damage and take sample of drywall for asbestos testing (this is required by law before any materials can be removed). It was our understanding that a plumber had already been assigned and fixed the plumbing aspects of the water damage downstairs before we came out. We never turned water on, left water on, or saw water leaking from a pipe while we were on the property. This simply is not true and there is no evidence to support this claim. 4.       Scaring the tenant/offering legal advice Regarding the tenant, we did not “scare” her, nor did we provide her with legal advice. When we came to the property she was already furious with the owner because of the damages that had been neglected. When I saw the mold and dry rot, it did appear that things had not been addressed in a timely fashion. Clearly, she does not need us for evidence as she already had a myriad of photos and emails to document her claims before we were involved. She informed us of all this on the first day we were at the house (May 24) which was well before the owner/customer terminated the work order.  It’s been weeks since we have talked to her. Today (August 11,2017), I spoke with [redacted] on the phone and we came to an agreement that he would dismiss the complaints he has towards us. As an act of kindness, we told him we would waive the costs and send his check back despite the amount of time and energy this situation demanded from our business. Hopefully this resolves our involvement with these concerns. We have an A+ rating with the Revdex.com and we intend to keep it that way.