ComplaintsforRestoration Management Company

• Initial Complaint

  06/30/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I hired RMC in Jan 2023 to dry out my basement after it flooded. They charged over $10,000 for their services. They said they dried dry out a crawl space. A buyers inspection of the crawl space 2 months after they treated it found mold and wet floor joist that were not dried out as RMC claimed. RMC came out after the inspection, viewed the area, and acknowledged the space was not adequately treated. They offered $500 to compensate for their failure to adequately treat the crawl space. It cost over $4,000 to dry out the area and remove the mold. They have stopped responding to my requests for fair compensation.

  Business response

  07/11/2023

  Executive Summary:
  
  Amount at issue:  Client demand was $4,086.30 broken down in his own words as follows: The cost to demo the tile was $1475 and the cost for RMC's share of the invoice from All Clean is $2,611.30 so total liability for RMC is $4,086.30.  I will not ask for damages for my time and the delays to the sale of the house that were the result of having to address this additional remediation work after a buyers inspection discovered the damages.   Please pay the $4,086.30.
  
  RMC branch offer:  $500
  
  Owner Fact Summary:
  
  Owner claims RMC failed to adequately dry out conditions association with a pipe break which was not discovered by the owners for about 30 days after the break.  Water accumulated in an abandoned swimming pool structure left in place after homeowners extended the living space by enclosing the area in the rear of their home where the pool sat (2010).  Instead of removing the pool they elected to simply build over it by installing a suspended floor.  Pictures seem to show support members for the flooring being extended from the bottom surface of the pool which we presume was affixed through the pool surface thereby disturbing whatever limited waterproofing may have existed when the pool was installed about 20 years ago.  Two claims:(1) RMC failed to adequately dry out the area associated with the pool thereby allowing continuing moisture to allow mold growth on the framing support for the floor; and (2) RMC failed to remove all of the tile the homeowner installed in the bedrooms adjacent to the pool room and those tiles then de-bonded from the mortar 4 months after we left the project, and homeowner claims it must have been wet the entire time.  Owner claims the area around the pool was permitted construction done in 2010.  Owner claims the tile in the bedroom was permitted work done in 2018.
  
  Investigations Into Facts
  
  Owner sold the home on June 7, 2023.  Investigations revealed that the homeowner wrote as though he continued to own the home when in fact it was sold on June 7, 2023.  There is nothing online that suggests that the price dropped from asking. 

  The owner represented that in the area where RMC performed its work the construction was permitted.  The demand included a claim that we did incomplete remediation work around the reclaimed pool area that the homeowner claims was permitted back in 2010.  The claim is that moisture still exists, and that moisture led to mold growth on the framing for the flooring in that room. After ******************** invited RMC to look at his 2010 plans/permits, I obtained them from Douglas County (all permits/plans actually.)  As it turns out ******************** was deceptive in that the plans/permits he obtained for that lower basement renovation stopped at the door to the pool structure and they were from 2008, not 2010.  They did not include plans/permits for the plumbing line that failed leading to the loss that RMC addressed, and the structural members for the floor above the pool, or any other aspect of the pool associated building. When we sought information about the pool related construction from Douglas County, and showed them the structural supports for the floor over the pool, their response via email was "yikes."  That is why the footings for the floor (see pictures) are allowing water to enter into the former pool area.  ******************** chipped away at the surface of the pool, disturbed the waterproofing associated with the pool, and water is drawn into the area when he heats the UNPERMITTED and UNPLANNED enclosed space he built after 2010.  ******************** blames RMC for his own unpermitted work and ************************ contract with RMC, Terms & Conditions, Para 3, under Exclusions, states RMC is not responsible for pre-existing conditions, construction defects, design defects (if he had actually obtained plans which he did not), and deferred maintenance issues.  Water is entering the former pool because ******************** did not properly waterproof his unpermitted construction and obtain plans to construct the floor that spans over the former swimming pool.  Plans for the 2008 and 2010 construction are attached to this response. Pictures taken by RMC (attached) demonstrate water is emanating from the cuts in the pool structure around the footings, as we suspected would occur as there is no waterproofing that prevents both water migration and vapor transmission through the pool surface and cuts.   

  Homeowners demand of $4,086.30 is supported by an invoice from ************* Services, LLC for removal of the tile left in place ($1,225.00) when in fact that was not done by the handyman at all.  The homeowner admitted in an email he exchanged with RMC that he in fact demolished the tile with a kid from his church. The invoice was fraudulently presented to RMC as a cost the homeowner incurred when in fact he did not incur that cost. The invoice was actually addressed to ************************ real estate agent and not *********************  It does not state it was paid - and it was not by ************************ own admission.  Further, RMC was not responsible for the wet tile in the bathroom that was discovered by ******************** months after RMC completed its work, as ************************ own invoices from All Clean Restoration demonstrate ******************** had a subsequent leak around his bedroom window that allowed water to enter the room and damage the tile.  The next paragraph addresses the tile claims which ******************** alleges arose from RMC's failure to observe wet conditions during the initial mitigation response.
  
  The demand is supported by an invoice from All Clean Restoration.  All Clean Restoration did not break out the cost of the various elements of their scope, so it appears someone wrote their version of that breakout, and those numbers are included in the demand.  In reviewing the owners support, RMC discovered that the invoice he sent us as documenting his damages includes work by All Clean Restoration around a window to one of those bedrooms where the owner claims to have discovered wet tile 4 months after we completed our work.  The scope of that work around the window clearly shows the window was leaking and allowing water to gain access to the room and the tile.  The homeowner alleges RMC failed to address tile and it remained wet 4 months after completion when in fact the homeowner discovered a new leak around his window in the bedroom and attempted to place the cost of repairs on RMC.

  ******************** closed sale of his home at ***************************************************************************** without disclosing to the new owners that he had unpermitted work associated with the swimming pool.  Instead, he installed a vapor barrier over the entire pool surface (he didn't charge RMC for that work apparently) and covered the condition of the footings which penetrated the surface of the former pool.

  The bottom line here is that ******************** is attempting to blame our emergency mitigation company for his own failures of judgment.  His decision to construct a floor over an abandoned pool to create more living space, all without plans and permits, allowed water to migrate into the former pool and damage the framing of the unpermitted floor supports.  ************************ assertion that RMC left wet and damaged tile in another bedroom is undercut by the fact that ************************ second mitigation contractor, All Clean Restoration, advised him that the window in that room where the tile is alleged to have been wet was leaking and needed to be demolished and the waterproofing needed to be addressed.  No one at RMC harmed ********************, we addressed a water loss associated with his unpermitted plumbing lines in that area around the pool and the work was covered by insurance.
  
  

*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. ↩