ComplaintsforAffordable Service, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  11/30/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  -May 28th, 2021 -I paid Affordable $1231.41 -Business committed to installing a water heating system, high pressure expansion safety system, upgrade leak protection safety pan, water connection system renovation, and basic code upgrades. -The dispute is over damaged caused during install by the installer. During installation of the water connection system renovation, the installer lit the drywall next to the pipes (side of the garage wall) on fire and it burned through the floor of the standing structure for the hot water heater and heater. The smoke was then sucked into the house through the furnace (AC was running at the time) and filled the whole house with smoke. The installer poured water into the wall to put the flames out. He cut holes in the drywall to make sure all flames were out. -The daughter of the owner contacted us that evening and came over to inspect the damages and offer a resolution. She noted the damage, commented on the house smelling like smoke and took pictures of the damaged areas. She offered to pay for a hotel that night but it was past 10pm and we declined that offer. We discussed with her the next day some plan for fixing the situation. The house still smelled like smoke and our throats were scratchy and raw from still dealing with all the smoke. They offered to clean the ducts out and sent a tech to clean out the ducts (the furnace was not touched, nor the site of the fire). The smell still lingered and I contacted ******* for an independent evaluation (paid by me). They determined that there was smoke damage and required drywall removal, insulation removal and disposal, cleaning the furnace, ducts (again) and filling the house with Ozone and Hydroxyl. I sent this report and our resolution request to the company. She stated that this was not reasonable and demanded access to the property to fix the drywall and for us to pay the balance. I declined. She stated their insurance would contact me. No further contact was made.

  Business response

  12/09/2021

  The entirety of this situation has been unfortunate, but we at Affordable Service would like to make very clear, that to our knowledge, we have acted entirely in good faith throughout our dealings with Mr. and Mrs. *****. The details of this situation were forwarded to our insurance broker fully 5 months prior to the posting of this complaint, and when we did not hear anything from the *****s during this nearly half a year interim, we assumed that their needs had been met. Upon notice of this complaint, it was discovered that there has been some failure to communicate between the *****’s and the insurance company. This was not something we were aware of, and now that we are aware, we find it very regrettable. We have now put protocols in place to ensure that should we need to file a claim in the future, no unintended delays will occur. During the last 35 years we have been in business we have always taken great pride in the relationships we have developed with our customers, the multitude of services we provide typically exceed expectations, and put simply, filing a claim of this sort has not been common.
  We at Affordable Service feel it is fair, and relevant, for us to answer the specific details of the complaint filed by Mr. and Mrs. *****. It is our opinion that the severity of the alleged smoke damage is in dispute. This is primarily because the burn damage to the sheetrock and pressed wood stand was objectively small, less than 8 inches square, about 4 inches on the sheetrock and 4 inches on the wood, and the burnt area of the pressed wood was not even severe enough to burn through to the area underneath. Also, the incident occurred in a garage, with the garage door open, and the damage that was done to this stand, that is shared by the furnace and the water heater, occurred on the opposite side of a sheet metal plate that separated the return air intake from the rest of the stand. It would therefore only be possible for trace amounts of smoke to enter the air stream during the operation of the ac. Further, the tech on site at the time of the incident did not smell any smoke in the home, and when the supervisor offered a hotel stay on the night of the incident, that was before she had been extended an opportunity to go to the house to assess the damage. When the supervisor went to check the home the next day, no actual smoke smell was perceived, though the house did smell sour, perhaps from the water damage from the leaking water heater that Affordable Service was there to replace. Upon detecting the sour smell, and considering the damage that was caused, it seemed prudent to assist the *****’s with their air cleaning needs. We performed a duct cleaning and agreed to replace the filters in the air cleaners that the *****’s were operating, and of course to repair the actual damage. After having made these offers, and indeed completing the duct cleaning, the *****’s countered with an estimate from a remediation company that included some of the services already rendered, and repairs that went far beyond what would be required to undo the damage. They also made a demand for the remaining $1231.41 outstanding balance to be waived, a refund be made in the same amount for the first half down they had already paid, and an additional 10-year warranty now be offered. After these demands were made, Affordable Service advised the *****’s that our insurance company would be henceforth handling their needs.
  Let it be stated, at the time of this posting, that we have been assured by Mr. ***** that he has indeed been contacted by our insurance company. ll us why here...

  Customer response

  12/15/2021

  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: There are many false statements within Affordable Service's response.  I will address all false statements below. 

  Affordable Service’s insurance company contacted us in December (after we filed our complaint with the BBB) to finally start discussing repairing the damage to our home six months after the accident. The insurance company claimed responsibility for the delay. We are pleased to hear that Affordable Service had actually filed a claim and intends to institute protocols that may prevent another such delay when a claim is filed. However, Affordable Service will need more than better insurance claim procedures to make their response to customer complaints approach reasonable expectations.
  

  We maintain that ASPH’s response to the incident was unacceptable. From the start ASPH was slow in responding to our biggest concerns. We did not feel taken seriously, and ASPH allowed us to remain in a smoke-damaged home for weeks that turned into months, refusing to properly repair the damage and without giving us the contact information for the insurance company they had supposedly decided to use after weeks of deliberation. And while up to this point our main concern with this company was a lack of willingness to take responsibility for damaging our home, the numerous false statements in their response to the BBB severely compounds how alarmed we are by this business’s unethical conduct. We feel obliged to warn other consumers of Affordable Service’s untrustworthiness. The remainder of this message will outline the inaccurate statements made by Affordable Service in their reply to the BBB.
  

  WE FIND THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS IN AFFORDABLE SERVICE’S RESPONSE TO BE MISLEADING OR INACCURATE:

  
  “[W]hen we did not hear anything from the *****s during this nearly half a year interim… it was discovered that there has been some failure to communicate between the *****’s and the insurance company.”
  We called Affordable Service (ASPH) two weeks after they finally said they would turn our case over to insurance instead of repairing the damage themselves, and they again assured us we would be contacted by “not Carlos – someone else [in the insurance company].” We were not given any contact information for this insurance company. Their insurance company has admitted fault in not contacting us, but we are surprised ASPH did not follow up with their own claim, and that ASPH would propose we were partially at fault for this! Because of ASPH’s evasive behavior toward us, we had to assume they had written us off.

  
  “It would therefore only be possible for trace amounts of smoke to enter the air stream during the operation of the ac.”
  The AC unit was on when the fire started, sucking all of the smoke into the house, letting very little into the garage itself. The tech said the reason he did not notice right away that a spark had started an actual fire was because the AC unit was actively sucking in the smoke instead of letting it rise where he could see it. Our home was visibly filled with smoke, to the point that it had to be evacuated for the remainder of the day, and a fire damage company (*******) and an ASPH supervisor both acknowledged the presence of smoke smell in the house days after the incident.

  
  “[T]he tech on site at the time of the incident did not smell any smoke in the home.”
  He did not because the tech never entered the home. He remained in the garage and stated that most of the smoke had been sucked into the AC.

  
  “[T]hat was before she [the supervisor] had been extended the opportunity to go to the house to assess the damage.”
  If the implication is that ASPH was not given adequate time to assess the damage, we disagree.
  When smoke started visibly pouring through the air vents, the house was evacuated and Mr. ***** rushed to the garage to see what was going on. The tech explained that the interior of the hot water heater and AC platform had caught fire and he hadn’t noticed right away because the AC had been sucking up the smoke, but that he had been able to extinguish the fire with a bottle of water and had cut a hole in the wall to verify that the flames were out.
  
  While the tech completed his task, having been told we would wait in the yard in the meantime, we called ASPH to report the incident, expecting a supervisor to jump on the case and take care of us immediately. What company wouldn’t when a rogue fire was reported? Instead, the tech left, saying the company was aware of the incident, and the next call we received from ASPH was an employee asking us to complete our payment. Our reply was that we would discuss payment after the damage was inspected and repaired. The employee on the phone was unaware of the accident and said he would call his boss. At dinnertime the house was still uncomfortable to breathe in, so we had to leave and eat out for dinner. While we were at the restaurant, we received a voicemail message from a supervisor that we answered immediately after finishing our meal and returning to the house. It was bedtime by this point; we were already in pajamas. We had moved beds and all of our air filtration machines into our smallest room in hopes of minimizing the smoke smell, but we ended up with smoke inhalation issues anyway. Therefore, the supervisor offered to put us up in a hotel (an appropriate offer, and we are saddened that ASPH’s response to the BBB expresses regret for this offer) and to come assess the damage the next morning. This was a perfectly reasonable timeframe, especially since the smoke was easily detectable the following day and for months afterward.
  
  “When the supervisor went to check the home the next day, no actual smoke smell was perceived, though the house did smell sour, perhaps from the water damage from the leaking water heater that Affordable Service was there to replace.”
  ASPH’s supervisor verbally commented, unprompted, as soon as she entered the house the following day that it smelled of smoke (not water damage). It was her first comment after saying hello. There was no and there has never been water damage to our home. Furthermore, every person who entered our home for the next several months smelled smoke, a distinct smell which cannot be mistaken for water damage, especially by plumbing professionals, so in this instance it is obvious that ASPH is being deliberately dishonest to try to discredit this case.

  
  With mounting evidence of ASPH’s unethicality, their bizarre statement that smoke was confused for water damage by plumbing professionals (which is not what any of their employees have ever said until we read ASPH’s official reply to the BBB) should be deemed highly suspicious. We call on the BBB and all consumers to be vigilant when dealing with this company. It is possible that ASPH’s behavior indicates a tendency to misuse a liability statement on their work estimates that reads, “Affordable Service (ASPH) holds no liability, is indemnified and held harmless from any water damage caused by pre-existing plumbing, fixtures, drains, appliances,” etc.

  
  *By the way, at one point the ASPH supervisor who had visited the home and said she smelled smoke floated the idea of saving ASPH money by buying the equipment needed to chemically treat the smoke damage themselves instead of paying professionals to do it. This sounded dangerous to us, given the toxic chemicals involved. We immediately turned down this idea and insisted on using an actual fire damage company, as we preferred that a professional, not a layman who “thinks” they can do it, fill and vent our house of noxious gas. Would a company who believes there is no actual smoke damage really discuss purchasing such expensive equipment to address a fake problem?
  

  “We performed a duct cleaning and agreed to replace the filters in the air cleaners that the *****’s were operating, and of course to repair the actual damage.” ASPH cleaned the air ducts. They did not replace the air filters (turned gray from smoke - photo attached, taken the day after the incident) that belong in the air vents – they INSTALLED filters that WE had purchased and kept on site. Also, they did not replace the filters in the three Austin HEPA air filter machines we had to run in our house for months to make the home livable and minimize the effects of smoke inhalation that the home’s occupants were initially suffering – ASPH never offered to replace those filters, though we did request that in our counter to them. ASPH offered to patch up the hole in the wall, not properly replace all burned components of the wall, as the fire damage expert we hired had said was necessary. This is not fully “repair[ing] the actual damage,” as ASPH claims to have offered.

  
  “After having made these offers, and indeed completing the duct cleaning, the *****’s countered with an estimate from a remediation company that included some of the services already rendered, and repairs that went far beyond what would be required to undo the damage.”
  After the duct cleaning, the smoke smell remained strong, indeed intolerable in some rooms of the house. Since ASPH was unconcerned, and both we and ASPH were unfamiliar with how to assess or remedy smoke damage, we paid $198 for a consultation by fire damage experts *******.
  The repair estimate that we sent to ASPH was, according to *******, the proper MINIMUM response to our level of smoke damage and was necessary in order to return the house to the state it was in before the fire occurred. (******* actually said they would have to reassess the house after this stage 1 response and determine if more smoke treatment was necessary, but that was not in the quote we sent to ASPH. Only the minimum treatment required was included in the estimate.) ASPH had indeed already cleaned out the air ducts for us (this is the “services already rendered” mentioned by ASPH), but ******* explained that since the burned insulation and ash were still around the AC intake, that had to be cleaned up first, THEN the air ducts cleaned again, because ash was continually being sucked into the AC ducts. Next, the home needed to be evacuated for 24-48 hours to be chemically treated for smoke damage. We forwarded this minimum response estimate to ASPH. ASPH did not indicate that they thought the assessment was incorrect nor ask for a second opinion.
  The only repairs that ASPH was ultimately willing to offer were to patch up the hole in the wall and clean the air ducts, which would leave the bulk of the damage (the smoke damage to the interior of the home and the burned material around the AC intake which rendered ASPH’s air duct cleaning moot) unrepaired.

  
  Regards,
  
  *********** *****

  
  

  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]

  Business response

  12/17/2021

  This Unfortunate incident has been turned over to our insurance company who has assured the General Manager that they will be making every effort to remedy the situation. 

*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. ↩