Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/07/2024

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  We were grossly overcharged for the mold remediation service provided by Mold Busters. Their cleaning team arrived on our property at 7:42 am and left at 12:30 pm. The total duration was 4 hours 48 minutes, or 4.8 hours. With three people working, the total time spent was 4.8 x 3 =14.4 person-hours. We were charged $4,230 before taxes for this job. This implies an hourly rate of $293.75 (= $4230 / 14.4). This amount of $293.75 is almost twice as high as the upper bound of mould removal labour cost ($50 to $150 per hour) quoted on the company's website ****************************************************************************** .When we agreed to the mold remediation contract, we were quoted an estimated two days to complete the project. Considering the hot weather, we were told the project could take up to four days as the team would have to work only in the mornings. Two days of effort would mean 45 person-hours of work (= 7.5 hours per day x 3 workers x 2 days). So, the implied labour cost of the contract was $94 per hour (= $4230 / 45), which is in line with the quote on the website. We had no means to estimate the extent of the mold problem or the effort required for remediation, so we had to trust the company's professional expertise. Now, we feel that our trust was abused. Based on the above, the company should charge us only for the actual effort to complete the project based on labour cost implied by the quoted time required to complete the contract ($94 per hour). The fair charge for the service is $******** ($94 per hour x 14.4 hours = $1,353.60 +$175.97 of 13% HST). Therefore, I requested a refund of the difference, which is $ ********. I calculated this by subtracting the fair charge from the actual amount paid: $ ******** - $ ******** = $ ********. The responses we received from the company are inadequate as they do not explain the extraordinarily high charge for the service.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/07/2024

  
  Dear BBB Representative and ******************,
  
  Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We would like to address the complaint made by *********************************** regarding the mold remediation service provided by Mold Busters at ***************************
  
  **Customer's Calculation and Perception**:
  ****************** calculated an hourly rate based on the total amount charged and the person-hours worked, arriving at an hourly rate of $293.75. He compared this to the $50 to $150 per hour range mentioned on our website for labor costs, stating that this rate is extraordinarily high.
  
  **Additional Costs Beyond Labor**:
  We would like to clarify that mold remediation involves several additional costs beyond just labor. These include:
  - Mold containment
  - Disposal of contaminated materials
  - Replacement of damaged materials
  - Cleaning and sanitizing
  - Post-remediation inspection and testing
  
  These components are essential for a comprehensive and effective remediation process and can significantly impact the final cost. The webpage referenced by the client specifies that the listed costs are estimates and can vary significantly based on the complexity of the job and other factors. This disclaimer indicates that the prices listed are not guarantees but rather examples of possible costs.
  
  **Terms and Conditions**:
  Additionally, our terms and conditions state:
  "Our estimates are all-inclusive of time, travel, labor, disposal, and materials costs, in accordance with the scope of work determined by Mold Busters. Estimated project times are subject to change upon the discretion & resources of the project supervisor, without affecting the accepted project cost. Exceptions apply to situations that are newly discovered, outside of the current scope of work."
  
  The terms and conditions were clearly stated at the bottom of the invoice and estimate, with a link to the full terms and conditions (*********************************************************************).
  
  **Specific Case Details**:
  For ********************** specific case, we deployed a team with a double set of tools to address the two attics (main attic and garage attic) that needed treatment. This approach allowed one team member to work in the garage attic while the other two worked in the main attic, speeding up the process and eliminating the need for additional time on-site. We typically do not send more than two people to work in such environments; however, due to the rescheduling of another project that day, we aimed to keep our crew working and expedite the completion of ********************** project, hoping it would be to their satisfaction.
  
  **Customer Service and Goodwill Gesture**:
  We regret if our previous responses came across as inadequate. We have multiple teams deployed daily to different properties for various projects, and we strive to maintain transparency and integrity in all our business practices. We also offered a consultation with a senior technician to further address any questions ****************** might have had about the remediation work performed, but they did not accept this offer. Additionally, we offered a complimentary mold inspection service with a written report that can be used for any property within one year from now as a gesture of goodwill.
  
  **Conclusion**:
  Given these factors and the comprehensive nature of our service, we respectfully decline ********************** request for a refund. We have completed all work according to the estimate details and in line with the terms and conditions agreed upon by accepting our estimate.
  
  We hope this detailed explanation provides clarity on the matter and demonstrates our commitment to resolving this issue transparently and professionally.
  
  Best regards,
  
  Mold Busters

  Customer Answer

  Date: 13/07/2024

   
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because the answer provided by the business does not really explain extraordinarily high labour costs per hour. Additional Costs Beyond Labour is a list of steps required to complete a mold remediation project. Typical labour costs quoted by a business to a customer, as they appear on the company website, include:
   - Wages or salaries of the employees or contractors performing the work
   - Overhead Costs
   - Profit Margin
   - Taxes and *************** ********* and Liability Coverage
   - Specialized Equipment or Materials
   - Travel Time and Expenses for services that require travel, the time spent travelling to and from the customer's location.
  Costs should be clearly stated and explained if they are not on the list. For instance, if a cleaning solution was used for the project, the quantity used and its cost per unit should be transparent. Simply stating that there are costs for mold remediation without providing specific details is not transparent and misleading. The project in question was simple and quick, which should be reflected in the costs.
  

  The company interprets the Terms and Conditions related to the project time abusively. When we agreed to the contract, we were told it may take longer to execute due to hot weather. This is why we agreed to these terms. In any case, the issue here is the fairness of the charges, not the legality. If we thought the company broke the law, we would pursue this matter in court.
  
  Concerning Specific Case Detailsand the use of a double set of tools, it is not clear how this is related to the charge of $293.75 per hour. As stated above, specialized equipment and materials should be included in labour costs. I did not ask the company to perform the project urgently and was unwilling to pay for it. In addition, we have strong reasons to believe that only one person was wearing protective clothes,and so only one person was working in actual attics at a time.
  
  Concerning **************** and Goodwill Gesture, the offers of consultations and inspections are not acceptable. We believe that the company cheated us. They provided misleading estimates based on the inflated time to complete the project and refused to adjust the charges in relation to the actual job performed. We do not want to conduct any further business with this company.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 17/07/2024

  Dear BBB Representative,
  
  Thank you for the opportunity to address the concerns raised by ****************** in his latest response. We are committed to providing a thorough and transparent account of our interactions and services, adhering to BBB guidelines and ensuring the confidentiality and respect due to all parties involved.
  
  **Clarification on Labor Costs and Additional Charges**:
  Mr. ******** concerns regarding the itemization of labor costs and additional charges have been noted. Mold remediation often necessitates the use of specialized resources that are reflected in our pricing. These resources include, but are not limited to, specialized equipment and materials necessary for a comprehensive and effective mold remediation process.
  
  - **Equipment Usage Explanation**: The deployment of a double set of tools was specifically to manage the unique requirements of having two separate attics needing treatment simultaneously. This strategic decision was made to ensure efficiency and safety, not as an avenue to increase the project cost.
  
  - **Transparency and Breakdown of Costs**: We are taking steps to enhance how these costs are communicated to our clients. We aim to provide clearer breakdowns in future estimates and invoices to ensure that our clients fully understand what each charge entails.
  
  **Project Execution and Time Management**:
  The projects timeframe was shorter than initially estimated due to unexpected availability of additional resources, which allowed for quicker completion without compromising on the quality of work. The cost remained aligned with the agreed-upon scope of work, which was based on the completion of tasks rather than the time spent.
  
  **Goodwill Gestures and Offers**:
  In response to Mr. ******** dissatisfaction, we extended several goodwill gestures:
  - **Complimentary Inspection**: We offered a free visual and diagnostic inspection with a written report, valued at $195+Tax, which can be utilized within a year.
  - ************************** We also offered free access to multiple mold courses, valued at $100+Tax, to provide additional value and support.
  
  These offers are made in the spirit of customer service and to demonstrate our commitment to resolving any concerns our clients may have.
  
  **Conclusion**:
  We value the feedback provided by ****************** and are actively using it to improve our service offerings and client communications. Our response represents a truthful account of the events and interactions with ******************, based on our records and the terms of the service agreement. We hope this clarifies the situation and demonstrates our commitment to providing transparent and fair services.
  
  Thank you for facilitating this dialogue. We are open to further discussion and are eager to resolve this matter to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 23/07/2024

   
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because the explanation regarding the significant reduction in labour time estimates without adjusting the price raises more questions than answers. Specifically,the business failed to justify why only one out of three workers wore the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) for mold work. As only one worker wore PPE, we believe a second set of tools was not used. Moreover,the business owner's attempt to justify the fourfold reduction in labour time by citing two sets of tools instead of one lacks mathematical coherence.Providing a double set of tools cannot reduce labour time by fourfold. This explanation appears implausible and does not align with the initial project estimates. In their previous response, the business representative attempted to justify the exorbitant cost by attributing it to the expense of replacement materials,which they claimed were integral to the process. However, we are left questioning what precisely these materials were meant to replace. It appears they did not replace any roof insulation or other components. Regarding the assertion that the cost includes the price of materials (chemicals, etc.)required for this type of work, we believe the initial estimates factored in the materials necessary for two full days of work. Given that they completed the job in only a quarter of the estimated time, with only one person wearing proper personal protective equipment, they should have used significantly less materials. It seems evident that we paid for a surplus of materials that were not actually utilized. We are deeply concerned that this business may operate by inflating project complexities to overcharge clients. Their rapid completion of the job, despite initial claims of extensive work needed, reinforces our suspicion of deceptive practices. Given the financial impact of this experience, we find the proposed goodwill gestures inadequate (and frankly, they sound like mockery). We have no interest in the offered report or educational courses, as we doubt their objectivity and professionalism based on the business's previous implausible explanations.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 27/07/2024

  Thank you for your continued communication regarding your concerns. We aim to provide final clarifications to ensure there are no misunderstandings about the execution and billing of your project.
  
  Clarification on Staffing and Project Execution:
  We have deployed two teams to your property, which significantly expedited the completion of the work. This decision was based on the unexpected availability of additional personnel due to the rescheduling of another project. Our intention was to efficiently use our resources to complete your project promptly, hoping this would be to your satisfaction. We apologize if this led to any misunderstanding about the charges or the scope of work.
  
  Materials and Project Scope:
  The materials used in mold remediation are determined based on the severity of the mold and the surface area to be treated, not the duration of the project. This ensures that the treatment is thorough, regardless of time needed for the completion of the project.
  
  Terms and Conditions:
  As stated in our terms and conditions, "Estimated project times are subject to change upon the discretion & resources of the project supervisor, without affecting the accepted project cost." This clause is intended to provide flexibility in managing project resources without compromising the agreed-upon cost or scope of the work.
  
  Response to Goodwill Gestures:
  We regret that our previous goodwill gestures did not meet your expectations. However, should you reconsider, we reiterate our offer of a complimentary visual and diagnostic inspection with a written report, valued at $195+Tax, along with free access to our mold education courses, valued at $100+Tax. These offers are intended to demonstrate our commitment to your satisfaction and the quality of our work.
  
  Conclusion:
  We have striven to address all your concerns transparently and in accordance with our established policies and professional standards. We consider this explanation comprehensive and hope it resolves any remaining issues.
  
  Thank you for addressing this matter with us, and we remain committed to improving our services based on the feedback received.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/08/2024

   
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because the business's assertion that it has deployed two teams on our property is a lie. It is invented solely to justify overcharging us for the work performed.  They inflated the scope of work, performed much less than was implied by the estimate and then left with a substantial payment. The so-called two teams mentioned by the representative comprised just three individuals, with ONLY ONE PERSON wearing proper PPE. This indicates that only this individual was handling any mold, if it was present at all.

  Our belief that there were no two teams is further supported by extraordinarily high implied hourly labour charges of $ ****** per hour for these three individuals performing the work. These charges are almost twice as high as the hourly rates quoted by the business on its website. If, in fact,there were two teams in place, the calculated labour charges would be at a more reasonable level.
  

  The business is abusing the contract terms to justify a gross overcharge. They interpret a reasonable condition of time management as permission to charge for work that was not performed. It's concerning that they could conduct a cursory site visit, claim completion of tasks, collect payment, and depart,all within a minimal timeframe. In our view, this behaviour represents a deceptive business practice. This conclusion is further corroborated by the business's refusal to specify what materials were used for the project and what costs.
  

  The gestures of goodwill are inadequate and mocking,considering the nature and scope of our complaint.  
  

  In summary, we strongly recommend avoiding this company's services. Instead, we suggest seeking a reputable alternative with a proven track record and ensuring thorough oversight throughout the mold remediation.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:15/11/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Mold Busters commited to remediate a mold problem in my home but did not solve it (October 7, 1782,11$). 2 technicians came to decontaminate on October 11 and the inspector had to decontaminate again on October 17. On both occasions they failed to deduce that the wood panels decontaminated were still contaminated with mold and needed to be removed and disposed rather than only decontaminated. As a result the interior wall was left open with wood panels contaminated with mold, exposing the house to airborne spores for nearly 2 weeks. On the October 7 initial inspection the inspector did not evaluate the extent of water damage and mold problem to execute an effective decontamination plan and on October 17 he did not respect the decontamination protocol, exposing the house to cross contamination. The report received is inaccurate and incomplete. The mold contaminated parts were removed by masonry workers on October 24. The General Manager was emailed several times since October 24 about the many issues, with information and pictures, but has never responded to any concerns to this day. He was informed twice that despite all the issues I was willing to complete payment upon receiving evidence of the post-remediation analysis from October 17 and a corrected report. Due to the lack of communication a formal notice was mailed on October 27 but the envelope was refused and returned to me. The General Manager replied for the first time by e-mail on November 2nd but all he does since then is to send payment reminders and ask me to call him by phone after having been informed several times to please address my concerns and communicate in written form because, due to cognitive disorders, I have difficulty to verbally elaborate complex english dialogue. A letter sent on November 7 was also returned. Due to lack of collaboration, unprofessionalism and inconveniences a full refund was asked. Instead he is threatening with legal action when the wrongdoing is unfounded from my side.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/12/2022

  1. On the date of the original remediation(October 11th), all of the items outlined in our original estimate were performed. The initial remediation resulted in negative swab test results in the treated area.
  

  The containment unit was set, and negative air pressure was established. All of the removed Materials were properly packed and disposed of. Finally, the process of cleaning and disinfection included manual wiping, HEPA vacuuming and fogging of the treated area to make sure that any left mold spores were removed before taking down the containment unit and performing a final instant swab test to make sure that there was no more mold left.
  
  2. After the client expressed his concerns about a liquid product that remained in the fibreglass strips that can be found between the window frame and the wall, we have decided to return back to the site on October 17th and remove the fibreglass strips and disinfect the area one more time. The material was removed, packed and disposed of in a safe and professional manner.
  As the area was successfully remediated during the initial project, there was no need for setting up a containment unit during the additional removal of fibreglass strips. The client’s concern was about closing the drywall with product liquid still present in fibreglass strips, not mold-affected fibreglass strips.
  Additional HEPA vacuuming and disinfection took place just to be sure and to reassure the client that we have went above and beyond to complete this project to his satisfaction.
  Also, we have used our calibrated particle counter reader to show the client that the number of particles in the air is at ideal levels.
  
  3. To all client’s emails, we have provided a reply offering to connect via phone to resolve issues. As the client refused to communicate via phone, we have provided answers via email, explaining that everything outlined in the original estimate was performed, as well as the additional visit for additional removal, which was not part of the original estimate.

  Until this day, we are still exchanging emails with this client providing information to questions we are being repeatedly asked. At this point, to recover our funds, this matter is going to a Small Claims Court and is being handled by our lawyer. 

  At this point we are taking this mater to Small Claims Court to recover our funds.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/01/2023

  
  Complaint: 18410009
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  1. On the date of the original remediation (October 11th), not all of the items outlined in the original estimate were performed. The 2 technicians did not remove and dispose of all the water affected insulation. The inspector had to come back on October 17 to complete that task. However, this issue was not the reason why a complaint was filed with **** ******** ******.
  
  In the response provided by the business, the reason why the complaint was filed was not addressed, which is that the original estimate was to remediate a mold problem and the mold problem was not remediated.
  Therefore, the work was not completed or successful.
  
  On October 24, masonry work took place on the same affected wall outside the house, and I was informed that the wood panels that Mold Busters decontaminated on 2 occasions (October 11 and October 17) were still contaminated with mold. The mold was on both sides. Mr. ******* ******* was informed about this on October 26, pictures were provided to him, but he has never addressed the situation.
  
  Mold Busters informed me on 3 different occasions that the mold problem was remediated: initial visit on October 11; second visit on October 17 to complete a task not completed on October 11; report received on October 21. However, if it was not because of the masonry work that took place on October 24 when I was informed that the wood panels were still contaminated with mold, if I had based myself on Mold Busters's information I would have ended up restoring the interior wall without knowing that the wood panels were still contaminated with mold. The masonry company had to remove and dispose of the contaminated parts of the wood panels in order to do their own work. However, Mold Busters was supposed to have remediated the mold problem prior to the masonry work.
  
  2. The October 17 visit did not happen as described on point 2 of the response sent by the business.
  
  This information provided by the business about the October 17 visit is not included in the report received on October 21. The only information about October 17 on the report received are certain pictures taken on October 11 being erroneously indicated as having been taken on October 17. Most of those pictures were provided to me on October 11 by e-mail by one of the technicians.
  
  The report received from Mold Busters on October 21 was inaccurate and incomplete. The report was provided when this claim was opened on November 15 but after the claim was submitted the report was not on the list of documents provided. I contacted **** ******** ****** about this on November 16 and I was informed that I would be able to add the document if the business replied.
  
  I provided the report now (************************) where it can clearly be seen that there is no detailed information about the second visit that took place on October 17.
  
  Mr. ******* was provided of all of my personal notes on October 24 via e-mail, and the information provided about October 17 on the reply sent by the business is practically based and transformed from my own personal notes.
  
  On October 24 a corrected report was requested to Mr. ******* via e-mail as well. My personal notes could help on correcting the report (dates, missing information) but to this day, a corrected report has never been received.
  
  My personal notes were provided to inform Mr. ******* of several issues that arose so that he could address the different issues with the respective Mold Busters team members concerned but to this day he has never informed me if he has done so neither.
  
  What actually happened on October 17 and that Mr. ******* was informed about on October 24 was this: after Mr. ***** ***** from Mold Busters support was informed on October 12 via e-mail that the interior wall restoration could not begin because the technicians did not remove and dispose of all the water affected insulation, Mr. ***** replied by e-mail the day after, suggesting to fix the problem, then I contacted him by phone and he refused to fix the problem. Despite my insistence, instead it was the inspector who was sent on October 14 to validate if there was a problem or not. On October 14, the inspector tried twice to say that everything was ok but when I asked him to use his moisture meter he could not deny the moisture reading. The inspector initially said that the technicians would come back but ended up saying that he would come back on October 17 to complete the task himself. On October
  17 the inspector did not set up a containment zone, despite after having been informed of a medical condition and because of the risk of cross contamination to the kitchen as the room is an open area room (living room and kitchen). The remaining insulation was not removed safely as I saw the inspector scraping quick and without vacuuming at the same time to avoid cross contamination. The particle counter test was not done to show me that the particles in the air were at ideal levels. That test was offered by Mr. ***** only to compensate for Mr.
  *******'s refusal to honor a free air quality test advertised on the Mold Busters website at the moment they were hired. If it wasn't for me asking for the free air quality test, the particle counter test would have never been done.
  
  After the remaining water affected insulation was removed on October 17, on October 20 the top of the window frame was still showing the same moisture reading. An e-mail was sent on October 20 to Mr. ***** about the swab test done on October 17 but to this day he never replied.
  
  On October 24, besides requesting Mr. ******* for a corrected report, detailed and photographic evidence of the post-remediation swab test done on October 17 was requested as well because of Mr. ***** not replying to my e-mail sent on October 20. I waited a whole month for Mr. ******* to provide me with that information, delaying the interior wall restoration for a whole month, and to this day he never provided the information.
  
  However, the remaining water affected insulation around the window frame is not the reason why the complaint was filed with **** ******** ******. The damp insulation not removed on October 11 indeed delayed the other scheduled work but the reason why the complaint was filed is the mold problem not having been remediated and Mr. ******* not addressing the situation after being informed about it via e-mail on October 26.
  
  3. My 2 initial e-mails of October 24 and October 26 were completely ignored. Both messages were written in french because I was communicating with Mold Busters in french from the very beginning.
  However, if Mr. ******* did not understood french, he could have replied to let me know so that I could have translated both messages for him, which I did on November 8. Or, he could have used google translator instead of not contacting me at all for more than a week.
  
  Because of Mr. *******'s lack of communication, I had to contact the *** (****** ** ** ********** ** ************) and *** (***** ** ******** ** ******) for assistance. I was advised to send a formal notice by registered mail on October 27. The formal notice was refused and the envelope was returned to me. Mr. ******* was informed of the formal notice's content on November 1st via e-mail and, only after that, he finally replied via e-mail on November 2nd. However, instead of providing concrete replies or the information requested (detailed and photographic evidence of the post-remediation swab test done on October 17 and a corrected report), Mr. ******* only repeatedly sent short e-mails asking me to call him after being informed several times that, due to cognitive disorders following a head injury, I have difficulty to verbally elaborate complex english dialogue. I never refused to communicate by phone. Mr. ******* was clearly informed of the reason to keep the communication in written form.
  
  Again, everything outlined in the original estimate was not performed because the estimate was to remediate a mold problem and the mold problem was not remediated. Mr. ******* was informed that the mold problem was not remediated by Mold Busters since October 26 but has never addressed the issue.
  
  Mr. ******* list the tasks that were performed but does not acknowledge that, in despite of the tasks that were performed, the mold problem was not remediated.
  
  Mr. ******* does not seem to understand that what the Mold Busters technicians did was cleaning the surface of contaminated wood panels without deducing that the mold was on both sides, therefore leaving the contaminated moldy material still in place instead of removing and disposing of it as indicated on the estimate.
  
  In addition, the inspector came on site on 3 occasions but unfortunately on the initial inspection on October 7 he did not evaluate the extent of the water damage and mold problem in order to make an effective remediation plan for the technicians. Then on the follow-up inspection on October 14 he was unable to deduce that the wood panels were still contaminated with mold, as well as on the second decontamination visit of October 17 when he came to decontaminate by himself.
  
  Mr. ******* needs to address these issues with his employees to avoid similar situations again. Several information was provided to Mr.
  ******* via e-mail since October 24 to help him on addressing different issues that arose with respective Mold Busters team members concerned. However, to this day, I have no idea if it has been done yet.
  
  The additional visit of October 17 was not for "additional removal, which was not part of the original estimate". The additional visit was to complete a task, that was part of the original estimate, but that was not completely done on the initial visit of October 11.
  
  According to point 2 of the estimate (Removal of affected Components), it is indicated "Removal & disposal of compromised, contaminated and/or moldy materials from the area", including "insulation".
  Therefore, removal of the insulation was not additional removal but part of the original estimate. The additional visit on October 17 was to remove water affected insulation that was not removed on October 11, therefore to complete a task that was not completed on the initial visit.
  
  Point 2 of the estimate also indicates under "Removal & disposal of compromised, contaminated and/or moldy materials from the area" "any other organic-based materials". Therefore, the wood panels that were contaminated with mold, that Mold Busters was unable to deduce were contaminated with mold on both sides after being on site on 4 different occasions, should have been removed and disposed. This is the main reason why I have been communicating with Mr. ******* since October 26 and why a complaint was filed with **** ******** ******.
  
  The masonry company that was hired for a completely different work (masonry on the outside front wall and restoration of interior wall) was the one that ended up fixing the mold problem, that Mold Busters was unable to fix, by removing and disposing on October 24 of the contaminated parts with mold of the wood panels that Mold Busters decontaminated instead of removing and disposing. Then they also ended up fixing the moisture problem on top of the window frame, on November 17, when the interior wall was restored.
  
  Until this day, we are indeed still exchanging e-mails but I have only received short replies from Mr. ******* without any concrete or relevant information. I provided on November 15 my full replies to the screenshots of Mr. *******'s short messages provided on the business response, except for Screenshot_1.png to which I am providing the reply now as it was after the date the complaint was submitted, to show that I have always been in touch and that I never refused to communicate.
  
  **** ******* **************** * ************** ** *** ******* **** ******* **************** * ************** * ** *** ******* ********* ** ******** *** **** ******* **************** * ************** * ** *** ******* ********* ** ******** *** **** ******* **************** * ************** * ** *** ******* ********* ** ******** ***
  
  I have indeed been repeatedly asking the same questions over and over but that is because to this day Mr. ******* has never replied in a concrete manner, has never provided with the information requested, and has never addressed the issue of the mold problem not having been remediated.
  
  On December 6, Mr. ***** ******* (******** ****** ********** *********** at Mold Busters) provided information that I was already aware of, but that should have been included on the report received on October 21.
  
  Mr. ******* was informed on December 7 that the information provided was not the information requested. He was also informed that an air quality test was scheduled on December 8 and that I would get back to him with additional questions concerning the particle counter test information provided by him.
  
  On December 13 Mr. ******* was contacted again but, rather than additional questions about the particle counter test, he was provided with additional information about the particle counter test. Mr.
  ******* was also asked, after providing on December 6 information that was not previously provided, about the detailed and photographic evidence of the post-remediation swab test done on October 17 and a corrected report. Then on December 14, Mr. ******* informed me that "all of the pictures we had to share, we have already shared them with you". Therefore, I have been just informed, almost 2 months after initially asking Mr. ******* on October 24, that there has never been any evidence available of the swab test requested.
  
  If, instead of ignoring my messages, Mr. ******* had informed me when initially asked on October 24 that there was no evidence available of the swab test done on October 17, it would have helped for me to figure out, along with Mr. *******, how to look further into the issue of the window frame still being damp in order to resolve it. The wall restoration could have been done long ago if Mr. ******* had provided assistance right away. It would also have helped to accelerate the air quality test, avoid severe distress, avoid several inconveniences that Mr. ******* was informed about, and for me to occupy the property sooner.
  
  On December 13 the results of the air quality test and tape lifting sampling were received via e-mail. I was also informed that the report would be sent the week after. The air quality test and tape lifting sampling were done to verify any contamination on the kitchen since the whole room is an open area room (living room and kitchen). I was worried about cross contamination since October 17 because of the containment zone not done and the insulation not safely removed, then I was also worried since October 24 about airborne spores after the discovery of the wood panels still being contaminated with mold while the interior wall was left open since October 11.
  
  The tape lift sampling came positive for Cladosporium on the kitchen counter. However, I was waiting to receive the report for more details before sending my response to **** ******** ******.
  
  Prior to sending this reply to **** ******** ****** on December 19, the complaint was closed in error on December 16. **** ******** ****** was contacted about it on the same day and I was informed on December
  20 to "Please email in your response for the business and include any supporting documents you deem necessary. Once received, *** will reopen the file and forward your response to the business."
  
  In the meantime, the report for the air quality test was received on December 19. Thankfully, the air is safe. The repeated ventilation done since October 11, and the proper cleaning of the room instructed by the company doing the air quality test prior to the test helped a lot. Also, according to the report, the type and quantities of spores found in the tape lift sampling that came positive for Cladosporium on the kitchen counter correspond to a normal ecology. Mr. ******* was informed of this on December 30. Nevertheless, this does not prevent the fact that the mold problem on the wall and moisture problem on the window frame were not successfully remediated by Mold Busters, as explained several times to Mr. ******* and as explained on this complaint, but Mr. ******* refuses to acknowledge it.
  
  As explained on this reply, the information provided by the business on their reply did not address the reason why the complaint was filed.
  Therefore, the business response is unfortunately not satisfactory.
  The reason the complaint was filed is the mold problem not having been successfully remediated, not the remaining water affected insulation around the window frame.
  
  The water affected insulation not removed on the initial visit was a different problem but not the reason why this complaint was filed. It was a task not completed on the initial visit of October 11 and that needed to be completed. However, even after that task was completed on October 17, the moisture problem on the window frame was not remediated. Mold Busters was requested evidence of the swab test done on the window frame since October 24 in order to figure out, along with them, how to fix that moisture problem. Thankfully, that moisture problem was resolved when the top of the window frame was properly cleaned to remove all the damp material when the interior wall was restored by the masonry company. But that moisture problem should have been remediated by Mold Busters, just like the mold problem should have been remediated by Mold Busters as well.
  
  At the moment Mold Busters was hired, an air quality test was advertised as included for free. Therefore, from the very beginning, I always thought that the whole situation would be handled by Mold Busters (remediation and air quality test). However, Mr. ******* refused to do the air quality test.
  
  This is the information that was on the Mold Busters website upon hiring their services.
  
  « De plus, suite à leurs travaux d’assainissement, nos techniciens effectuent systématiquement une analyse de la qualité de l’air gratuite pour s’assurer que l’air de votre maison soit propre et sans moisissure. »
  
  This translates to english as:
  
  « In addition, following their remediation work, our technicians systematically carry out a free air quality analysis to ensure that the air in your home is clean and mold-free. »
  
  After informing Mr. ******* about it, the information was removed from the Mold Busters website.
  
  Being that the mold problem was not remediated, in despite of the several tasks performed, to resolve this complaint I am requesting for Mold Busters to reimburse the cost of the air quality test, since the air quality test was initially advertised as included for free by Mold Busters but was refused. Mr. *******'s lack of communication for several days and lack of collaboration to provide the information requested did not help neither. All this situation has been very difficult, caused severe distress and several inconveniences that Mr.
  ******* has been repeatedly informed about. Therefore, the reimbursement of the air quality test is the least that could be done by Mr. ******* since the mold problem was not remediated, as it has already been explained several times to him since October 26.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/01/2023

  Mr. **** ******* (client) at ***** **** **************** *************, initially made contact with Mr. ***** for a VA, in which the scope of work was determined and submitted to the client as an estimate. The client accepted the estimate and a free follow up inspection was scheduled with me on October 7th 2022.  During my follow up inspection, several diagnostic tools were used, including a moisture meter which confirmed water entry into the top portion of the window sill. The Scope of work which ***** had outlined was accurate and therefore remediation was scheduled for October 11 2022.  See the report by supervisor ********* for details on remediation.  Following the remediation, the client contacted us with concerns that some remaining fiberglass insulation above and on the sides of the sill could still pose a threat. A follow up inspection was scheduled for October 14th. The follow up inspection revealed that some fiberglass insulation had been left behind however, it was not a danger due to having been sprayed down with fungicide. Additionally, a swab test was taken of the area which tested negative for growth. I explained this to the client and he showed understanding. He still had some reservations about it since having a medical condition and due to the fact that the wet insulation would hinder the contractor from sealing up the wall. We then agreed that I would come back to remove the leftover insulation. On October 17th I came back to complete the work. I laid down a drop sheet on the hardwood infront of the window and with a hepa vacuum, sucked out all of the remaining insulation. To go above and beyond, I treated the areas again with fungicide and even fogged the living room. This was all taking place while the client had decided to remain on premise. Following the completion of this work, the client brought up to me that he would like an air quality test done, free of charge, as is stated on our website. I asked him to show me the line on our website that indicates this and he provided me with a page on the French version which had a section that alluded to such thing. In order to honor this mishap (as it is not something we offer and was a translational error), I conducted a particulate test of the air with the portable particle reader. The particulates in the air were in the normal range. I presented this to the client for his satisfaction and proceeded to gather my things as he seemed gratified. In the following days, Mr ******* proceeded to send us very long emails detailing his dissatisfaction despite all of the work that was outlined, being completed to scope. 
  
  Oct 7th: follow-up is scheduled to confirm the scope of work with inspection ***
  
  October 11th: remediation is carried out under supervisor ********* 
  
  October 14th: another follow up is scheduled with inspector *** due to client complaint that the work was not done correctly. 
  
  October 17th: *** comes back for additional work. Work is carried out and a post clearance particle test is conducted in lieu of a spore trap air test.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 18/01/2023

  
  Complaint: 18410009
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The reply provided by the business still does not address the main issue which is the mold problem not having been remediated.
  
  Most of the information provided on this last reply about the second decontamination visit of October 17 I am already aware of as most of this information was provided by me to Mr. ******* via e-mail on October 24 after seeing that the report received on October 21 had no information about the October 17 visit.
  
  The way the information about the second decontamination visit of October 17 is explained by the business is not completely accurate.
  
  October 7 was not a follow-up inspection but the initial inspection. On that day Mr. ***** did not use several diagnostic tools. Only the moisture meter was used. Mr. ******* was informed about this on October 24. When Mr. ***** was sent again on October 14, I received an e-mail to confirm the appointment as a "Follow-Up Assessment" with a link to the video "Professional Mold Inspection A to Z" that showed the several tools Mr. ***** could have used on October 7. Then on October 14 and October 17 I was the one asking Mr. ***** to use other tools. He did not use other tools from his own initiative. I am not trying to be harsh with him but, as kind as Mr. ***** was, the initial inspection was clearly not properly done in order to, as the Mold Busters website indicates, evaluate the extent of the water damage and mold problem in order to execute an effective remediation plan. Otherwise, the mold problem would have been solved instead of having the wood panels contaminated with mold still in place and not being removed and disposed as indicated on the estimate.
  
  On the October 11 remediation I was informed by the technician ********* that the mold problem was solved but in reality neither of the 2 senior technicians were able to deduce that the wood panels were contaminated with mold on both sides.
  
  On October 14 the swab test was done at my request but not inside the cracks between the window frame and the wall but on top of the damp insulation with fungicide. That is why I was kind of doubtful about that swab test result. Mr. ******* was also informed about all this on October 24. The remaining insulation needed to be removed because it was damp, not drying, and making it impossible to restore the interior wall.
  
  On October 17 Mr. ***** was requested to set up a containment zone due to a medical condition and the kitchen being in the same open room area. He was not properly equipped to do so but he reassured me that he would remove the insulation very gently while vacuuming at the same time. However, as I looked downstairs at some point, I saw Mr. ***** scrapping the insulation quick and without vacuuming at the same time. The vacuum was on but the vacuum cleaner tube was on the floor leaning against the window and not being used. I did not watch him for the entire time, therefore I will give him the benefit of doubt. Nevertheless, it does not takes away the fact that what I saw was not Mr. ***** removing the insulation in a safe and careful manner to prevent cross contamination to the rest of the room as he reassured me he would do. At the end of the appointment I did not knew how to address this situation with him. I was only hoping that everything would be ok. And Unfortunately it was not ok as the wood panels were still contaminated with mold and Mr. ***** was also unable to deduce that, just like the technicians on October 11.
  
  Concerning the air quality test, I never brought up that I would like an air quality test done free of charge. I informed Mr. ***** that the Mold Busters website indicated that a free air quality test was done following the remediation work, that on October 11 I was not informed by the technicians if it was done, and if he could inquire about it to see if it was done or not, so that he could do it at that moment. Mr. ***** informed me that he was not aware about a free air quality test and asked me where that was on the Mold Busters website. Since Mr. ***** was unable to find the information on his phone, I went to check the website on my computer and brought him a printed screenshot of the webpage, which did not alluded to such a thing but rather clearly indicated that a free air quality test was done following the remediation work. At the same time, Mr. ***** was texting with Mr. *******. I asked Mr. ***** to consult Mr. ******* about this, and Mr. ***** replied that Mr. ******* informed him that it was a translation error from the english to french website, therefore refusing for him to do the free air quality test. This was not translational error or mishap. The screenshot with the integral text was previously provided in this complaint and it clearly indicates « De plus, suite à leurs travaux d’assainissement, nos techniciens effectuent systématiquement une analyse de la qualité de l’air gratuite pour s’assurer que l’air de votre maison soit propre et sans moisissure. », which translates to english as: « In addition, following their remediation work, our technicians systematically carry out a free air quality analysis to ensure that the air in your home is clean and mold-free. ». Mr. ***** then proposed to use the particle counter machine to compensate for the refusal of Mr. ******* to do the air quality test.
  
  In the following days the very long e-mails that I sent to Mr. ******* were not to detail my dissatisfaction. The e-mail of October 24 was to inform Mr. ******* of issues that arose so that he could address the issues with the concerned Mold Busters team members to avoid similar situations, to ask for detailed and photographic evidence of the swab test done on October 17 to figure why the window frame was still damp in addition to preventing the interior wall restoration, and to ask for corrections on the report received. The e-mail of October 26 was to inform Mr. ******* that the mold problem was not remediated. After that I have been repeating the same information over and over to Mr. ******* because he ignored my e-mails for more than a week and later on when he finally replied he never provided the requested information in order to be of any assistance. He only repeatedly insisted on me calling him by phone when the information requested could have been easily provided by e-mail. I did not called him because all the information from my side was already provided, I am not able to verbally elaborate complex english dialogue due to a brain injury, and because after being ignored for several days by Mr. *******, unfortunately the bond of trust was broken.
  
  At this point I am still waiting a response concerning the main issue which is the mold problem no having been remediated.
  
  In addition, due to not being on my property for almost 2 months while awaiting for the information requested to Mr. ******* to begin the interior wall restoration and do an air quality test to make sure that everything is ok before occupying the property again, besides having a faucet cracked and leaking, there is also now a mice problem because of the food that I had to throw out. I also still have to verify if any spores got into the first floor bathroom air duct since that bathroom was used by the technicians during the October 11 remediation while the fan grill was not sealed, and the same goes for the kitchen range hood on October 11 and October 17. The lack of communication and collaboration in order to be of any assistance caused one problem after another when all Mr. ******* needed to do since October 24 was to just inform me that Mr. ***** did not do or did not had evidence of the swab test done on October 17, whichever it was. That way we could have tried to figure out what to do concerning the window frame still being damp preventing to restore the interior wall instead of waiting for an entire month without a single concrete reply. I was finally informed that there was no evidence of the swab test almost 2 months later, on December 14, by another Mold Busters employee.
  
  Mold Busters needs to understand that, in despite of all the work outlined being, according to them, completed to scope, the mold problem was not remediated. The work was to remediate a mold problem. Pictures of the wood panels still contaminated with mold were provided to Mr. ******* via e-mail on October 26.
  
  Oct 7th: initial inspection scheduled to confirm the scope of work with inspector ***; only the moisture meter was used.
  
  October 11th: remediation under supervisor *********; I was informed that the mold problem was solved; not all water affected insulation was removed.
  
  October 14th: follow up assessment scheduled with inspector *** due to damp insulation not removed.
  
  October 17th: *** comes back to complete work; the particle counter test was not done as a post clearance test but proposed after Mr. ******* refused to honor the free air quality test advertised on the Mold Busters website; if I had not asked about the free air quality test, the particle counter test would have never been proposed or done; the result of that test is not relevant as it was done about 15-20 minutes after the window was opened and in front of the open window; the machine only read particles inside a perimeter of 1 cubic foot; the machine was nowhere near the wood panels contaminated with mold; in despite of the work carried out, the mold problem was not remediated as the wood panels that were decontaminated twice by Mold Busters were still contaminated with mold and left in place instead of being removed and disposed as indicated on the estimate.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *******