ComplaintsforAll Pro Restoration

• Initial Complaint

  05/03/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This business was called, upon recommendation from our carpet cleaners, when we had a small water leak into our basement from a broken master valve from the sprinkler system. The affected area was only a wet carpet and pad, measuring 13'x6', requiring only that the carpet be pulled up and dried and the pad removed. The baseboards and drywall were not affected. The employee of the company represented that the law required that baseboards be removed and that holes drilled into the wall for asbestos and lead testing; under the duress of the situation i did not have time to research the assertion. They did supply an estimate at the time but did so by misrepresenting the law. When I did research the law, and confirmed with ****** at the ****** it became clear that such was not the case - testing is required only in the cases of remodeling, renovating or demolishing - clearly not in this case, and as such the employees were not at risk. They subsequently deployed 3 industrial fans, an air scrubber, and a dehumidifier in addition to destroying 50' of baseboard and drilling holes in the drywall, several of which are visible above the baseboard and will need to be repaired. The total invoice came to $2873 for what should have been pulling up the carpet and removing the affected pad alone. In addition we have the costs of replacing the baseboards and repairing the holes in the walls. I have spoken to the owner ****** on 2 occasions and he will not consider working with us on the charges, for which I feel $1200 would be fair. It would not be reasonable to submit this to my homeowner's insurance as the eventual cost with premium increases and subsequent potential claims would be more than these charges. As noted ,we are seeking only a fair resolution of the actual work required.

  

  Business response

  05/05/2023

  Our company was contact around 10 AM on 4/11 for a water loss. The client had been referred by a carpet cleaning contractor that understands that water damage cannot be simply "cleaned away" and therefore they refer all water damage related carpet cleaning requests to our firm.

  
  Our techs responded to the home around 2 PM on 4/11. The lead technician responding is our most senior technician and our Mitigation Manager. He has 16+ years of experience in the restoration industry and is also state certified as a Building Inspector (for asbestos containing materials), Lead/RRP certified with ********, Water Damage Certified with the ********* of ********** Cleaning & Restoration Certification (IICRC). He has also been Asbestos Supervisor Certified with the state of ******** in the past. 
  

  The homeowners were informed that the padding under the carpet would need to be removed and the *** (multi-density fiberboard) baseboards removed. 
  

  The baseboards were swollen from the water damage and, like an Oreo cookie that has been dunked in milk, would never un-swell. It is industry standard to remove any baseboards that are not actual wood materials. Removing the baseboards gains the technician air flow access to the sill plate (structural to the home and susceptible to mold) behind the baseboard. Otherwise, the technician is left trying to dry a sill plate underneath a of building materials, which, even with hardwood baseboards, can take much longer to dry. When the baseboard was detached, it became evident that the drywall was hung all the way down to the floor with very little air gap between the substrate (concrete) & the drywall. Therefore, holes were drilled above the sill plate, through the drywall to get the maximum amount of airflow to the sill plate and dry it without removing any drywall itself. New baseboard can go right over most of the holes, and no one will ever know they are there; the ones that are slightly above the line can be filled relatively easily. 

  
  The lead technician informed the homeowner that to disturb the drywall, he would require that the drywall be tested on the walls that we would be disturbing. We were going to be removing 37+ linear feet of baseboard. To remove baseboard, one has to cut into the drywall with a knife to cut the caulk/paint line of the baseboard so as to tear as little of the drywall & texture as possible. The homeowner states himself that asbestos testing is only required in cases of remodeling, renovating, or demolishing. ***************************** fall under the laws of remodeling and renovating because we are removing materials that are damaged and replacing them with new, which is what is done in a remodel or renovation. The state law has a 32 square foot policy per home, but All Pro Restoration has a zero-tolerance policy because our technicians health is at risk if they expose themselves to a minimum of 32 square feet of asbestos material per home which could potentially be hundreds of homes a year and thousands of square feet of asbestos they are exposed to per year. We do this for the safety of our technicians. Additionally, this home was built in ****, an era that asbestos was commonly used and despite the area having recently been remodeled, there is/was no clarity on which walls were removed in the remodeling & replaced or not. 

  
  We would like to point out that the homeowner acknowledges our company provided an estimate up front. Of which the amount estimated was $5,931.00. We were able to get the home dry in 2 days instead of the estimated 4 days and remove less materials than anticipated. Therefore, our invoice total (which he also acknowledges) came in at $2,873.81 (which included the asbestos testing services). This is less than half of the estimated costs. A request to reduce this by more than another 50% is unreasonable, when we were already 100% fair in our estimating & billing services. We only billed for services rendered and nothing else. And our services were estimated & approved up front. 
  The homeowner says he called ****** with CDPHE but ******, who can interpret the state laws, cannot interpret our companys internal policies. The 32 square foot minimums that the state has tolerance for is a state tolerance level, not a company tolerance level. 

  
  The homeowner is frustrated that he has repair costs associated with our work, but the scope of work was also discussed & estimated up front and he knew in advance that these repairs were going to be necessary. He agreed that $5,931 was fair, we only billed for $2,873.31 and therefore he has $3,057.69 left to work with. Replacing the pad, repairing the holes & getting the baseboards repaired will come well under the leftover $3,057.69. 

  
  The homeowner is saying $1,200 is fair because we should never have removed the baseboards. However, even if we had not removed the baseboards, the cost to remove the baseboards, drill the holes and spray antimicrobial was only $102.67. Even adding in the cost of asbestos testing to this $102.67 is only $729.24. Therefore, the offered price of $1,200 is unreasonable. He is asking for a $1,673.81 discount when he is only disputing $729.24 in services. 

  
  If the baseboards had not been removed and the homeowner had chosen to leave them, instead of removing them, the dry times would not have been 2 days. They would have been 4 days, which would have increased the costs of equipment by $455.50. 

  
  If the homeowner wants to trade the services he disagrees with, for the additional equipment costs it would have taken to dry this in place (instead of removing baseboards), we could provide a price reduction of $273.74 off the bill to settle this. This is the difference between the $729.24 he is disputing and the $455.50 for the additional days of drying it would have taken. 

  Customer response

  05/10/2023

   
  Complaint: 20015023
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I completely disagree with the assertion that the baseboards were "swollen" or contained water. I inspected them myself both before and after they were removed and they were dry. The statement made by the business was based on a Flir assessment which I also saw and did not indicate water in the baseboards but only in the carpet and pad where they met. Thus removal of the baseboards, testing for asbestos and lead, and drilling holes in the drywall was unnecessary and damaging. I also should note that I vacuumed most of the water up myself before they arrived. As a measure of good faith I will offer to settle the dispute for $1500.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************************

  

  Business response

  05/12/2023

  While we appreciate the need to stick to your guns, the statement that the baseboards were "completely dry" when we removed them is incorrect and we are attaching 3 photos of the baseboards after we detached them from the wall with obvious dark water ****s on the back of the baseboard, indicting water in the baseboards. The baseboards were wet and wet MDF can not be salvaged. They are not meant to hold water for any period of time. Not like wood baseboards.

  I also have 1 thermal image that shows a orangish/pinkish **** in the middle of the wall and on/above the baseboard where the water intruded through the wall and got the wall & baseboards wet. 

  We do not accept the proposal of $1,500 to settle this invoice. 

  Customer response

  05/15/2023

   
  Complaint: 20015023
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I still do not accept that it was necessary to drill holes in the wall and test for asbestos and lead; I can accept that the baseboards needed to be replaced but they do not contain those substances, having been placed in 2008, nor did the drywall. I also continue to believe that the equipment t used for drying was more than necessary. Please advise what would be an acceptable resolution of the invoice.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************************

• Initial Complaint

  12/20/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Had a minor water heater leak. Called All Pro to dry out carpet. They arrived and had us sign a form allowing them to resolve the problem. Immediately upon signing they started tearing up carpet, breaking things they were moving and telling us about crazy fees like $200 for a single heater fan rental. After 30 minutes of this activity, we asked them to leave as they were causing more problems than solving. They tried to force us to allow them to continue. We ordered them to leave. The service amounted to two people for one hour and a truck. They removed one bag of trash hand caused $500 in damages. Then they sent us a bill for >$1300. This is gauging in every way. When I talked to their accountant they were completely beligerent and sent us directly to collections. The worker they sent had mental issues. His partner literally asked him "did you take your pills today". Despite this terrible experience, they not only did not charge. They gauged us.

  

  Business response

  01/11/2023

  
  I have looked up both the address and the customer name in our records and have found no matches to anything in our system. 
  

  
  

  Customer response

  01/12/2023

  Enclosed is the collection letter from All Pro Restoration listed as the Creditor.  Note that ************************* (my wife) is listed as the paying party.

  

  Business response

  02/07/2023

  Please note that Mr. ********* and Mrs. ********* are being used in the stead of the homeowners names, for privacy purposes. 

  This was a case of a bait on switch on the homeowners part. All Pro Restoration was dispatched to the job, approved to perform services by one homeowner and then relinquished from those services by the other homeowner after work had already started. Mrs. ********* signed the work authorization (attached for reference) but then Mr. ********* cancelled, and we complied with the cancellation but still billed for our services rendered. The detailed account of these events is below.

  We were contacted by Mrs. ********* on 2/20/22 at 9:30 PM and asked to come out and help with a copper pipe that had failed in a finished basement. We responded and were onsite by 11 or 11:30 PM that same night. Mrs. ********* showed both our technicians the area that was affected. After discussion of the affected area and our recommendations, Mrs. ********* authorized us (with her signature) to start removing the 56 SF of carpet & pad as well as place drying equipment. After we had already removed the carpet & pad as well as placed the drying equipment, Mr. ********* arrived upset at what work had been authorized already (he was not actively present when we first arrived onsite). 

  Our technicians then attempted to inform Mr. ********* that these services would be covered on an insurance claim (as had previously been discussed with Mrs. ********** but she opted to write out of pocket as the payment method on the work authorization) and that our technicians recommended he make an insurance claim. Mr. ********* did not want to do so. He inquired into pricing for services and when pricing was discussed, he promptly asked our technicians to remove the equipment that Mrs. ********* had authorized the technicians to place. The technicians, not wishing to be confrontational, of course complied with Mr. *********s request to remove the equipment from the home. 

  Mr. ********* mentions our technicians tried to force them to allow them to continue. It is unclear how any forcing could have been done. Informing the homeowner about their options with insurance and answering their questions about pricing (even after starting the work) is not forcing. Nothing about what was done was forceful.
  
  

  Per the request of Mr. ********** our equipment was not left onsite, but we were called out for an emergency response, at 11:30 PM by one owner of the home, authorized to perform services by that owner and then asked to leave by a different owner of the home upon his arrival. Our technicians were paid for their emergency dispatch to respond to a water loss after hours (as they should be at 11:30 PM) and their hours/time as well (keeping in mind the drive time from ****** to ************** a 2 hour round trip for our techs at 11:30 PM, plus the time spent onsite; equaling a minimum of 3-4 hours per technician; 6-8 hours total). All Pro Restoration also deserves to be paid for services rendered that evening, the dispatching personnel on the phone, the technicians onsite, drive time, etc.

  
  The amount that was submitted to the *********s was less than $1,300, which included:

  - our pre-discussed $394.20 service fee that is always discussed on the phone prior to dispatching a technician

  - the moving of their personal belongings at an after hours rate - $22.76

  - the removal of carpet, after hours - $113.68

  - the removal of pad, after hours $108.08

  - the wipe down of the concrete floor after removal (removes residual water) - $36.96

  - equipment setup (asked to setup by Mrs. *********), take down (then asked to take down by Mr. *********), drive time, after hours $550.40 

  - gloves - $13.98

  - disposal of carpet & pad - $32.03

  TOTAL: $1272.09

   

  This invoice is attached to this response as a reference as well.

  The homeowners received a copy of this invoice on 2/23/22, at which point they opened it 4 times on 2/23, once on 2/24, 3 times on 3/1, 3 times on 3/8 and again, once on 3/9. No phone calls were made about payment or disagreement thereof. No payment was made either.

  Again, we sent the invoice on 7/15/22 and it was viewed 3 times on 7/15 as well as 3 times on 7/20. A demand letter was sent via email on 7/21, at which point a phone call was received on 7/21 claiming we had damaged and broke stuff but this was the first it was ever brought to our attention 5 months after services were rendered. We were not informed of any damages prior to this date, sent any photos of damages, and still have not been sent any, to-date. No payment was made on 7/21 either.

  According to the notes on file, Mr. ********* started "cussing at" our Accounts Receivables person and "calling her names" at which point our employees are instructed to not stay on the phone. We do not deserve to be berated. Generally, if a homeowner is willing to calmly discuss a situation, matters like this can be discussed & resolved amicably. But once a homeowner becomes belligerent, we allow our staff to exit the conversation. 

  Since the homeowner became upset with our Accounts Receivables personnel on the phone, the file went to collections to be collected by a third party agency. 

  We have just double checked with our collections agency and no monies have even been paid to the collections agency nor have they been paid to us, yet a refund is being requested as a resolution to this problem. No money has been paid therefore no refund would even be warranted a refund could only be requested for monies paid. 

  We understand this is a difference of authorizations between two homeowners that we got caught in the middle of. One homeowner wanted the services, the other did not. 

  Since this is a he said, she said situation about the berating conversations in July over the bill and broken stuff, we are willing to reduce the amount owed to a flat rate of $1,000 to pay us for our time to dispatch, our time to and from the home, fuel/wear/tear on the vehicle to and from the home, our time at the home, the authorized removal of materials, the disposal of the materials (no matter how small it was), the miscommunication between the two homeowners that we got caught in the middle of, etc.

  Customer response

  02/09/2023

   
  Complaint: 18618024
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

   

  First I am accused of bait and switch.  So the companies thesis is I colluded with my wife to have them come out, do some work and then not pay them.  There was no collusion.  I reject this accusation.

   

  Second - they present information that is incorrect.  This work was not done at night.  It was done on Sunday morning.

   

  Third - I do not accept wear and tear / mileage on their trucks.  I contacted a website for local ******** service.  Somehow that was sent to them in ****** and they accepted the job.  When I talked to them I said this seems far away, but they said "no problem".  That means they accepted a far away job.

   

  Fourth - pricing was not presented when my wife signed.  Just acceptance of work to be done.  After the signature and the work had been done, we were presented with pricing.  That is a definite bait and switch.  Charging us $500 for a heater fan "rental" was egregious.  As were the other charges.  I could tell at that point we had been taken advantage of.

   

  Fifth - damage was done by their workers.  My wife was upset about this.  And stopped them from further potential damage tearing out our bookcase which we easily removed and repaired ourselves.  We needed them to not be aggressive with our possessions and home.  Their response to this was - "well you didn't tell us about that so we can't do anything now".  A technicality to not take ownership of the damage.  We have pictures as proof.

   

  Sixth - they are wrong on the time of this service.  It happened during the day on Sunday.  Not at night.  Another attempt to overinflate what effort they did.  We have timestamped photos to prove they are wrong there.

   

  Seventh - they were unprofessional and did not do the job correctly.  I work in construction and have many friends in the trades.  They should have just lifted the carpet, removed the wet pad, dried it all out and put it back together.  They overreacted to the situation causing damage.  Another reason for me asking them to leave.

   

  Finally - just because my wife signed a contract to have them help us does not mean we lose the right to terminate that effort if it is priced in a predatory manner and the work is done poorly.  The real bait and switch here was getting her to sign the contract and not estimate prices prior to work.  If they don't want pushback on price, they should present a complete estimate up front.

   

  I also work in Insurance.  It is classic for service companies in restoration and roofing to execute these predatory practices.  They ***** the price hoping the insurance company will pay.  Never telling the customer that while insurance paid this will increase future coverage / premium and count against them.  Another bait and switch practice rampant in the industry.

   

  I am willing to pay $500 for their "efforts" if that is acceptable and to stop wasting my time here.  If they also remove the collections company and the tack on fees they want to work through this.

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

  

  Business response

  03/02/2023

  In order to resolve this, we will accept ******************** offer of $500 to have this removed from collections (the agency was notified today) and to settle this in the agreed amount of $500 as "PAID IN FULL". Please remit payment to our offices, addressed to All Pro Restoration, ************************************************************************. Thank you and the best of luck to you. 

  Customer response

  03/08/2023

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  I will process payment tomorrow Mar 9, 2023.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

*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. ↩