ComplaintsforAmerican Design & Construction Group

• Initial Complaint

  05/19/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Initial client call for services- 10 Apr 2023 (per business); Initial visit/inspection- 15 Apr- Cursory thermal imaging (**** min; no report), photoed roof/ceiling/rooms, set up dehumidifier, air circulators and air filter in 2 rooms-1 hour visit; Stated that his business would need to tear out kitchen cabinets, replace beams and drywall, tear out bathroom closet/walls; 18 Apr- I turned off all equipment due to allergic reactions-I **uld not tolerate being in the house with equipment on; 26 Apr- I notified business that I **uld not tolerate chemicals (Mediclear) to be used for mold remediation, would have to cancel the **ntract, and asked to have the balance sent to me, business removed equipment-1/2 hour visit. Amount paid business: $500 (check). Since my insurance did not **ver wind/hail damage, I decided not to **mplete an insurance claim. Business **mmitment- Work directly with insurance ** to obtain best out**me for client; "work specifically within insurance authorizations for mitigation, estimates, and settlement for remediation", limit damages to property; negotiate repairs with insurance **mpany; request separate authorization from client prior to any repairs. Nature of Dispute: Failure to mitigate against further water damage/ leakage from roof prior to dehumidifying/drying surfaces; overcharging or double charging for services rendered; lack of justification for some service fees. Has business tried to resolve? No. My first indication of a problem was getting the bill in a certified letter that also threatened to place a property lien if I refused to pay the bill, before I even knew what the charges were or total remaining. I am willing to pay fair market value for services rendered. Business now threatens a liable lawsuit for registering a **mplaint and a review of the business with the Better Business Bureau. Online investigation of similar services (WITH damage repair), equipment and thermal imaging seem to indicate excessive fees for services.

  

  Business response

  05/30/2023

  ********************* contacted us regarding a roof leak that she reported to her insurance company. We arrived on-site, ********************* agreed to our fees and signed our agreements. We then set up equipment, took photos, thermal images, and contacted her insurance adjuster. ********************* claimed she needed to turn off our equipment after 3 days. However, once we arrived on-site to collect our equipment 11 days later, she was then still using our equipment as water was still flowing from our dehumidifier, and claimed she was " breaching our agreements and cancelling the insurance claim". We only charged ********************* for 3 days use despite the facts that ********************* used our equipment continuously for the 11 days. ********************* has failed to make proper payment. A certified demand for payment notice was sent on 4-1-2023 of which she failed to properly respond. A certified mail demand to retract and correct her defaming and untrue statements to the BBB was sent on 5-1-2023 of which ********************* refused to accept and was returned to us. ********************* has made a partial payment and currently owes us $1924.06. Because of the failed actions for the first certified notice to her, and the refusals to accept the second certified notice to her, we are now permitted to file formal legal actions against her and her property in order to protect our investments.

  Customer response

  06/08/2023

   
  Complaint: 20081459
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 

  I remain unsatisfied with the business response to my complaint. I was met with further threats of a property lien and a libel suit (for filing an honest review on the BBB website). I was told by the business that I would be responsible for their attorney fees and any time that he spent on preparing for lawsuits at $65.00/hour.

   

  I only used the equipment for 3 days and not the entire day because I experienced allergic reactions while it was running and could not remain in the house. The business knows this because I asked them when I could turn it off and the response was 3-5 days. I kept the instruments off until they were picked up. 

   

  The business sent certified mail to my physical home where I do not have a mailbox; this is why the delay in my receipt of the certified mail, which I have to pick up from the post office. I did not pursue my claim with the insurance company, which negates the contract, according to my lawyer.

  I sent the business a check #**** on 26 May 2023 for the balance due of $1924.00. The check has not been cashed, but I have paid the bill in full ($3174.00)- Check #**** on 17 May $750 (cashed) and check #**** on 4/15 $500 (cashed).

  However, I maintain that the prices are exorbitant for the work performed- 1.5 hours total to set up and remove 3 air circulators, 1 dehumidifier, and 1 air scrubber used over 3 days, for a small wet patch about 2 ft x 2 ft in a ceiling that does not contain mold.

  I request adjustment to the fees and repayment of the overcharged amount- corrections to the area treated, elimination of dual billing for visits, elimination of the O&P add-ons, and elimination of payment for a HEPA filter that is changed every 2-3 years.

   

  The area treated was only 622 sq feet, not ****/ **** sq feet as claimed. The home is only **** sq ft total. I am being charged over the cost of all of the equipment used, purchased new (see below). There is also double billing for labor and visits that do not make sense to me. (See attached bill).

   

  The American Design and Construction Group refused to engage with my questions and continued to respond with threats of lawsuits and liens. The business is not licensed to perform mold remediation or construction in TN. I engaged 2 separate companies following roof replacement to evaluate for mold, and giving free estimates, BOTH companies did not find any evidence of mold to treat in the ceiling or attic and discovered that there was minimal water damage. They took photographic evidence, as did the roofers (who also did not find any significant water damage). Amer Design and Construction Group was prepared to treat my home for mold, at risk to my health, without any evidence that mold was present. They also failed to remediate the underlying problem of the leaking roof as stated in the contract- their duty was to remediate (prevent further damage to property).

  1.     Turbo Air circulators (3): DRI-EAZ Turbo dryer, Sanataan SX floor dryer model F199, SN 27184

        COST:   $110. (x3) =                                                                             $330.0

  2.     Air Scrubber with HEPA filter (1): Abatement Technologies Hepa Aire Portable Air Scrubber PAS 600 (PAS600)                                                                                            $1131.8

  3.     Hinense 50-pint 2-speed Dehumidifier (1):                                        $259.00

                              TOTAL COST TO BUSINESS:                              $1720.85

         4.   HEPA filter for Abatement Air Scrubber:                                  $275.00

              *NOTE: Client was charged $268.75 for a NEW HEPA filter.

              Filters are changed every 2-3 YEARS. Cost to client should be prorated by days used.

  365 d x 2.5 years= ****** days at $275; prorated is 257.00/912= **** cents per day, x 3 days =    $0.85.

   CHARGES FOR EQUIPMENT USE (3 days) TO CLIENT:

  (O&P = Additional Overhead and Profit fees)

   1.     Dehumidifier per 24 hour period for 3 days:

  $141.03 (3)= $423.09 (+84.62 O&P) =                                                     $507.71

   2.     Air scrubber for 3 days:

  $74.72 x 3 days = ****** (+***** O&P) =                                                $269.00

   3.     Air circulators (3 each)-

  $26.50 (9)= ****** (+***** O&P) =                                                        $286.20

  -There were not 9 air movers in the house. There were 3, as per equipment document dated 4/15/23. Client was charged for 3 circulators for 3 days.

   4.    Equipment setup, takedown, and monitoring (hourly charge):

   $ ***** for 1 hour + ***** (O&P) =                                                         $65.08

  -How is this different than general labor or the emergency visits charged separately? No other labor was performed.

  5.    Equipment decontamination charge per piece of equipment:

              $36.04 x 5 instruments = ****** (+***** O&P) (+**** tax) =                    $219.11

  -The homeowner should not be held responsible for the maintenance of equipment. Based on the quality of air circulation coming from the equipment placed, it seems that the mold odors were coming from the air circulation equipment and not the home. There is no evidence that decontamination was performed on the instruments prior to placement.

   OTHER CHARGES IMPOSED:

  From Contract:

  1.     Emergency service call- after business hours-                  $280.22

  -        When and what is this? Client paid $500 for an initial visit on a SAT during business hours. Business hours are M-Sat stated on the business' website.

  -        There was no emergency; the business delayed the initial and subsequent visit to a time convenient for the business, and the business urged the client to cancel 2 visits from the insurance claims adjuster that were convenient to the customer.

  2.     General Charges- for total square footage -                     **** sq ft

  -        The entire house is **** square feet. Equipment placed only in the bathroom, hallway and living room/kitchen great room.

  -        Kitchen/Living room:           550 sq feet

  -        Guest bathroom:                    42 sq feet

  -        Hallway                                 30 sq feet

  ACTUAL TOTAL:                         622 square feet treated

  National average fair market cost for water damage repair, cleanup and mitigation, Category 1 (clean water, small area) is $2.00-4.00/ sq ft.  $3.00 x 622 sq ft = $1866. The actual water damaged area was only 2 x 2 feet.

  NOTE: No damage repair was performed; no cleanup and no mold mitigation.

   3.        Emergency service call- after business hours-                  $600

              - When and what was this?

   4.          Thermal imaging-                                                           $600

              - The contract amount states $500 for thermal imaging, not $600.

  - Fair market pricing for thermal imaging for water damage, along with home inspection, WITH a professional report, is $325.00. WITHOUT a professional report, $125.00.  See attached from ************************. Also indicated on this website is that an adequate scan on a 2000-3000 square foot home takes one hour, includes the thermal scan, downloading images, then carefully interpreting and explaining the findings directly while on site. None of this was performed, and the actual scanning took less that 5 minutes.

   5.         General laborer- per hour                                              $78.00

  - Total time spent was 1 hour the first day, and hour the second visit, which would be $65 + $32.50 = $97.50 for labor over 2 days. How is general labor different than cost of an emergency visit at $600?

   CONTRACT AGREEMENT PRICING: 

         Initial Visit:                                           $500 (paid by check)

         On site inspection:                                $250

         Thermal imaging:                                  $500

     I paid $1250 to cover the contract and this was still not acceptable to the business. No formal report was ever rendered to the client for an inspection or thermal imaging, and the insurance company was never part of these transactions. The company never dealt with the insurance company, as per the contract. I have consulted a lawyer regarding this matter and given the evidence of fair market pricing for similar services on line, these prices appear exorbitant.

  Sincerely,

  *********************************

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

  

  Business response

  06/14/2023

  Mrs. ********* statements:
  Complaint: 20081459
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 
  I remain unsatisfied with the business response to my complaint. I was met with further threats of a property lien and a libel suit (for filing an honest review on the BBB website). I was told by the business that I would be responsible for their attorney fees and any time that he spent on preparing for lawsuits at $65.00/hour.
  Answer:
  We reject ********************* claims of filing an honest review on the BBB website, and consider such as misleading. However, we appreciate ********************* admitting that she was told by the business that I would be responsible for their attorney fees and any time that he spent on preparing for lawsuits at $65.00/hour as accurate.
  
   Mrs. ********* statements:
  I only used the equipment for 3 days and not the entire day because I experienced allergic reactions while it was running and could not remain in the house. The business knows this because I asked them when I could turn it off and the response was 3-5 days. I kept the instruments off until they were picked up. 
  Answer:
  We collected our equipment 11 days after first put them into use. On day 11 of collection, the equipment remained in the same location, with the dehumidifier drain tube in the kitchen sink, and water was then currently free flowing from this drain tube, and the motors on the dehumidifier, Heap Air Scrubber, and Air Movers were still warm from use. There is no doubt to me that our equipment was in continual use for (11) days. However, as prior stated in our earlier responses,and reaffirmed herein, we only charged ********************* (3) days use.
   Mrs. ********* statements:
  The business sent certified mail to my physical home where I do not have a mailbox; this is why the delay in my receipt of the certified mail, which I have to pick up from the post office.
  Answer:
  ********************* also received these **** Certified Notices via her email, and knew the certified notices were in route to her prior to their arrival. In fact, ********************* rejected the notice to ***** and ****** notices for *****. However, ********************* claims herein that she has been on notice to retract her libelous statements to the BBB, yet that Certified Notice was rejected by ********************* and returned to us. Therefore, ******************** knew that certified notice was in route to her, and intentionally refused them, then acknowledges herein that shes on notice.Furthermore, not knowing isnt a reasonable excuse for refusing your mail delivery.
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  
  I did not pursue my claim with the insurance company, which negates the contract,according to my lawyer.
  Answer:
  Once you file and insurance claim, you cannot un-file it or not pursue my claim with the insurance company, and then expect to breech your agreements with your contractor, and have reasoning for her to not pay what she owes.
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  I sent the business a check #**** on 26 May 2023 for the balance due of $1924.00. The check has not been cashed, but I have paid the bill in full ($3174.00)- Check #**** on 17 May $750 (cashed) and check #**** on 4/15 $500 (cashed).
  Answer:
  Our work was completed at the home of ********************* April 26th. After several demand notices received and rejected, ********************* decided to pay her previous balances 6 weeks late, because she knew that was the right thing to do.However, ********************* admits to being on notice for further litigation fees and time involved defending her meritless claims against us.
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  However, I maintain that the prices are exorbitant for the work performed- 1.5 hours total to set up and remove 3 air circulators, 1 dehumidifier, and 1 air scrubber used over 3 days, for a small wet patch about 2 ft x 2 ft in a ceiling that does not contain mold.
  I request adjustment to the fees and repayment of the overcharged amount- corrections to the area treated, elimination of dual billing for visits, elimination of the O&P add-ons, and elimination of payment for a HEPA filter that is changed every 2-3 years.
  
  Answer:
   As listed in our agreement that ********************* signed, we license the same platform for estimating as does all other insurance companies, called Xactimate. This estimating platform has monthly updates to its pricing. ********************* was charged less than what our typical fees would have been, giving ********************* any benefit of the doubt. We used a current price list, with typical charges for the time, and equipment used, we reduced the days that the equipment was actually used (11) days down to (3) days. Our signed agreements and Xactimate billing are attached.(see attached).
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  The area treated was only 622 sq feet, not ****/ **** sq feet as claimed. The home is only **** sq ft total. I am being charged over the cost of all of the equipment used, purchased new (see below). There is also double billing for labor and visits that do not make sense to me. (See attached bill).
   Answer:
  We did not charge ********************* by the square foot. We charged for typical Xactimate fees,for work completed, as in our signed agreements. **** ********* complaints about how much our equipment costs  neware false, inaccurate, and misleading, furthermore irrelevant to the work performed and billed accordingly..
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  The American Design and Construction Group refused to engage with my questions and continued to respond with threats of lawsuits and liens.
  
  Answer:
  
  False, we have answered every question or complaint from ********************
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  The business is not licensed to perform mold remediation or construction in TN.
  
  Answer:
  
  There is no licensing classification for mitigation. We did not perform any repairs, or further acts that would require licensing. ********************* already knew this, yet complains to the BBB.
  
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  I engaged 2 separate companies following roof replacement to evaluate for mold, and giving free estimates, BOTH companies did not find any evidence of mold to treat in the ceiling or attic and discovered that there was minimal water damage. They took photographic evidence, as did the roofers (who also did not find any significant water damage).
  
  Answer:
  ********************* claims no mold presence, according to other companies that she has claimed to hire to inspect mold, yet our requested service from *********************, was specifically for a water leak and the presence and that she could smell of mold. Also, ********************* offers no proof of testing, and laboratory results ******, from the businesses that she claims to have hired, as to the clearance or contamination of mold. Furthermore, we did not charge ********************* for mold testing or removal therof.
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  Amer Design and Construction Group was prepared to treat my home for mold, at risk to my health, without any evidence that mold was present.
  
  Answer:
  We only use disinfectants. However, we did not apply or charge for any disinfectants to treat any mold whatsoever, nor did we test for mold,because ********************* admittedly breached our agreements, and cancelled our progress
  
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  
  They also failed to remediate the underlying problem of the leaking roof as stated in the contract- their duty was to remediate (prevent further damage to property)
  
  Answer:
  ********************* admittedly breached our agreements and prevented our progress. Furthermore, it was never our responsibility to repair Mrs. ********* home. In fact, in our signed agreements, it specifically states that an additional agreement must be signed prior to any repairs, after the insurance company has authorized such.
  
  
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  
  1.     Turbo Air circulators (3): DRI-EAZ Turbo dryer, Sanataan SX floor dryer model F199,SN 27184
       COST:   $110. (x3) =                                                                           $330.0
  2.     Air Scrubber with HEPA filter (1): Abatement Technologies Hepa Aire Portable Air Scrubber PAS 600 (PAS600)                                                                                         $1131.8
  3.     Hinense 50-pint 2-speed Dehumidifier (1):                                       $259.00
                              TOTAL COST TO BUSINESS:                             $1720.85
        4.   HEPA filter for Abatement Air Scrubber:                                $275.00
             *NOTE: Client was charged $268.75 for a NEW HEPA filter.
             Filters are changed every 2-3 YEARS. Cost to client should be prorated by days used.
  365 d x 2.5 years= ****** days at $275; prorated is 257.00/912= **** cents per day, x 3 days =    $0.85.
   CHARGES FOR EQUIPMENT USE (3 days) TO CLIENT:
  (O&P =Additional Overhead and Profit fees)
   1.     Dehumidifier per 24 hour period for 3 days:
  $141.03 (3)= $423.09 (+84.62 O&P) =                                                   $507.71
   2.     Air scrubber for 3 days:
  $74.72 x 3 days = ****** (+***** O&P) =                                              $269.00
   3.     Air circulators (3 each)-
  $26.50 (9)= ****** (+***** O&P) =                                                      $286.20
  -There were not 9 air movers in the house. There were 3, as per equipment document dated 4/15/23. Client was charged for 3 circulators for 3 days.
   4.   Equipment setup, takedown, and monitoring (hourly charge):
   $ ***** for 1 hour + ***** (O&P) =                                                       $65.08
  -How is this different than general labor or the emergency visits charged separately? No other labor was performed.
  5.   Equipment decontamination charge per piece of equipment:
             $36.04 x 5 instruments = ****** (+***** O&P) (+**** tax) =                  $219.11
  -The homeowner should not be held responsible for the maintenance of equipment. Based on the quality of air circulation coming from the equipment placed, it seems that the mold odors were coming from the air circulation equipment and not the home. There is no evidence that decontamination was performed on the instruments prior to placement.
   OTHER CHARGES IMPOSED:
  From ************************************************************** call- after business hours-                 $280.22
  -        When and what is this? Client paid $500 for an initial visit on a SAT during business hours. Business hours are M-Sat stated on the business' website.
  -        There was no emergency; the business delayed the initial and subsequent visit to a time convenient for the business, and the business urged the client to cancel 2 visits from the insurance claims adjuster that were convenient to the customer.
  2.     General Charges- for total square footage -                     **** sq ft
  -        The entire house is **** square feet. Equipment placed only in the bathroom,hallway and living room/kitchen great room.
  -        Kitchen/Living room:           550 sq feet
  -        Guest bathroom:                   42 sq feet
  -        Hallway                                30 sq feet
  ACTUAL TOTAL:                         622 square feet treated
  National average fair market cost for water damage repair, cleanup and mitigation, Category 1 (clean water, small area) is $2.00-4.00/ sq ft.  $3.00 x 622 sq ft = $1866. The actual water damaged area was only 2 x 2 feet.
  NOTE: No damage repair was performed; no cleanup and no mold mitigation.
   3.        Emergency service call- after business hours-                 $600
             - When and what was this?
   4.         Thermal imaging-                                                         $600
             - The contract amount states $500 for thermal imaging, not $600.
  - Fair market pricing for thermal imaging for water damage, along with home inspection, WITH a professional report, is $325.00. WITHOUT a professional report, $125.00.  See attached from ************************. Also indicated on this website is that an adequate scan on a 2000-3000 square foot home takes one hour, includes the thermal scan,downloading images, then carefully interpreting and explaining the findings directly while on site. None of this was performed, and the actual scanning took less that 5 minutes.
   5.         General laborer- per hour                                             $78.00
  - Total time spent was 1 hour the first day, and hour the second visit, which would be $65 + $32.50 = $97.50 for labor over 2 days. How is general labor different than cost of an emergency visit at $600?
  
  Answer:
  These statements of claims are total fabricated nonsense on part of *********************. Also, her claims of changing Hepa Filters every 2-3 years is a failed and false statement on its face. Heap filters are routinely changed on every jobsite to prevent cross contamination from one job to the next. Also, I find it very odd that ********************* would collect data such as the model and serial numbers from our equipment. We deny her allegations. Furthermore, the theoretical charges that ********************* has listed herein, are not within the four corners of the documents that she agreed to and signed. Therefore we can only view this as attempts to deceive the BBB and defame our good name within our community.
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
   CONTRACT AGREEMENT PRICING: 
         Initial Visit:                                          $500 (paid by check)
         On site inspection:                               $250
         Thermal imaging:                                  $500
     I paid $1250 to cover the contract and this was still not acceptable to the business.
  
  Answer:
  ********************* was in receipt of our billing prior to any complaint filed by her. In her review,she claimed to pay ** $1500.00 when in fact she only paid us $500.00 at that time.
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  No formal report was ever rendered to the client for an inspection or thermal imaging,and the insurance company was never part of these transactions. The company never dealt with the insurance company, as per the contract.
  
  Answer:
  ********************* was in fact present when I took several photos and thermal imaging photos. The thermal imaging photos, along with regular photos, were emailed to ********************* on 5-16-2023. A **** Certified Notice that included a report stating thermal images were elevated with moisture, that was dated 4-29-2023, was sent to ********************* with a demand for payment via **** Certified Mail. Mrs. ********* claims that we never interacted with the insurance company is false. We contacted her insurance company on several occasions. However, she cancelled her claim with her insurance company, and instructed the insurance company to no longer communicate with **.
  
  Mrs. ********* statements:
  I have consulted a lawyer regarding this matter and given the evidence of fair market pricing for similar services on line, these prices appear exorbitant.
  
  Answer:
  We estimated and billed ********************* from the same platform that all insurance companies u. We view Mrs. ********* statements of fair market value only as the what ********************* would like it to be. Furthermore, we will strongly advise ********************* has further failed to state the name of her attorney that gives her the fair market value of mitigation as she claims. Furthermore, Mrs. ********* claims are not within the four corners of the documents that she agreed to and signed, therefore irrelevant as to the facts. Mrs. ********* claims are untrue,misleading, and defaming.
  
  
  Mrs. ********* attached document and statements contained therein:
  
  EVALUATION OF EXPENSES FOR WATER DAMAGE and MOLD REMEDIATION
  Evidence for Price Gouging
  
  Answer:
  This a manufactured document, by *********************, with including but not limited to; manufactured and misleading amounts, figures, and estimates, and statements, meant to mislead the BBB and damage our good name within our community. Mrs. ********* claims are not within the four corners of the documents that she agreed to and signed, therefore irrelevant to the facts. Furthermore, Mrs.********* claims are untrue, misleading, and defaming.
  
  
  
  
  Conclusion:
  
  ********************* contacted our company with a water/mold problem. We responded onsite, agreed on scope and fees, signed in writing, started working, and setup and started runtime for equipment,in good faith.
  While on-site, we also took photos and Thermal images. We discussed protocols and ********************* told us that her deductible was at least $3000.00, So ********************* knew she had to pay her deductible directly to our company, as agreed in writing, but failed to make payment as agreed.
  We observed what appeared to be mold, as captured in several photos that we supplied to *********************,but on our second inspection and visit, ********************* refuse to allow us to collect mold testing swabs, or measure the affected areas, told us she was breaching our agreements, and asked us to gather our equipment and leave, so we agreed.
  ********************* used our equipment for (11) days continuously, and we only charged her for (3).However, our attorneys state that there is still unpaid equity remaining in the (11) days while the equipment was on-site, and being used by *********************.
  ********************* refused to make proper payment, directing us to send her two certified notices.She accepted one, but refused another and was returned to us.
  ********************* has admitted in her statements to the BBB, of our company placing her on notice,for her defaming and false accusations, and that she signed our agreements for $65.00 per hour dealing with her claim.
  ********************* may have cancelled her claim, but we have not.
  Because ********************* has refused to ***** and Desist her malicious attacks on our company, causing us unwarranted and unnecessary grief, time, and money, we have been forced to start legal actions against her, through the proper legal avenues and venues, and for causing the necessity for seeking the proper restraints of her malicious attacks of defamation and libel on our company, and for damages caused by ********************, and for amounts that remain unpaid, and now consider past-due, and for the amounts of $65.00 per hour, relating to her claim, since, 4-2-2023, as she agreed in writing.
  Weve offered ******************** solutions along the way, in order to amicably resolve, but to no avail,and have only been met with defaming statements to the BBB. We will now send ******************** notices for legal actions against her, as to answer in detail, in a legal admissions of facts document, and a legal notice to produce documentsthrough our claims and discovery, in order to prove her claims that she has made against us through the BBB, and as to all that pertains to her claims within her review of our company to the BBB, and as to her accusations, complaints, and statements to the BBB, of which we are claiming as malicious attacks by ********************, and prior to the filings of such documents, along with our
  
  specific claims against *********************, seeking restraints, damages, and penalties, in the Superior Courts of Washington County *********, in order to deter such behavior in the future.
  We provided a service in good faith. ********************* cancelled her claim, has thus-far avoided proper equitable payment in full, and has defamed our company to the BBB. We are now seeking legal filings and actions against *********************, and will not hesitate to protect and defend our company and our good name against such future malicious attacks.
  Discoverable documents with a 10-day demand prior to Superior Court filings Via **** Certified Notice ********************. If ********************* refuses the mailing or fails to respond within the 10 days as demanded therein, with proper payment, we will file the same documents in the Superior Court of Washington County ********* seeking relief, and the appropriate materialmans lien to secure our investment as legal actions move forward against her. As ********************* has been on notice for her libel, we are not required to further notify her prior to legal actions.
  
  Very Truly Yours,
  
  *********************************
  American Design & Construction Group LLC.
  For The Company
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Customer response

  06/15/2023

   
  Complaint: 20081459
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  I never received the 2 libel" certified mailings. My original check for $500 had my mailing address (PO Box) on the check, as have all subsequent payments. I did not refuse receipt of the mail. I never saw it.
  
  I did not have the equipment on for 11 days. I could not tolerate the allergic response it caused. I left the equipment in place during that time, until it was retrieved. There was water in the line in the kitchen sink when I turned it off: I did not attempt to drain it. The motor was not warm when he came as claimed (a new claim on his part) because I had not been using the equipment for over a week.
  
  Business claims to use Xactimate for business expense billing. Xactimate is an insurance claims estimating software for any restoration job. Use of this software does not preclude manipulation of the data entry into Xactimate by a business to produce inflation of costs.
  
  The business has specifically told me not to notify them directly but to send communication to their lawyers, with no lawyer address provided. When I asked the business to cash my last check, and informed them that they did not have my correct mailing address, I was told not to contact them again and that I am now "blocked.
  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. ↩