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:07/27/2022

  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.

  Contract to complete restoration services after a small garage fire was signed on May, 2021. The contract amount was for $80,000. Approximately $27,000 in credits for work removed from the contract were in agreement. Complaint is that several items were not completed, several items now are not functioning (warranty). Maximum still wants to charge for work they did not do plus 30% (overhead, profit, and cancellation fee) for work they did not perform. Their inaction indicates they do not want to resolve these issues, rather just keep the money I had overpaid.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/08/2022

  On May 17, 2021, the ******* entered into a contract with Maximum for repairs to their home after a fire.  The ******* insurance company and Maximum agreed to a scope of work, which was related to the fire and a price for that work in the amount of $80,375.90.  The ******* insurance carrier is only obligated to pay that which is directly related to the fire or to the work done in repairing damages for the fire.  The relationship between the ******* and Maximum deteriorated greatly toward the fall of 2021.  There were disagreements on what was related to the fire and what was not.  Maximum was last at the property in late summer 2021. In February 2022, *** ****** voiced concerns over five issues – 1) kitchen cabinets that were no longer setting flush to the ceiling 2) a carpet/tile cleaning bill 3) trim for an attic access point 4) two outlets not working in a bathroom and 5) a “clanking” under his garage door threshold. The carpet cleaning bill and attic trim were resolved immediately.  Of the complaints *** ****** initially raised to Maximum, in February 2022, the only ones remaining unresolved were kitchen cabinets not flush to the ceiling, threshold clanking, and two outlets not working.  *** ****** has refused to pay the final amount due to Maximum in the amount of $6,898.21. 
  Kitchen Cabinets:  ******’s insurance company only paid for the existing cabinets to be removed from the wall and then reinstalled.  The cabinets went into the same holes as they came out of.  ****** claims it was ceiling work that caused the issue and Maximum disagreed.  Ultimately, Maximum refunded the amounts from the insurance company for the kitchen cabinets so that ****** could have another contractor install the cabinets the way he wanted them to be done.   A photo of kitchen cabinets not flush to the wall is a new complaint.  As ****** was credited the money for the kitchen cabinetry to have another contractor finish it the way he wanted and Maximum assumes that ****** did so.
  Outlets not working: Maximum did not believe this was related to the fire as it was in a different part of the property from the fire.  There was no indication these outlets worked prior to the fire and they were not included on the scope of work from ******’s insurance company.   Maximum advised ****** to have the electrician who worked at the property, or another electrician of his choosing, troubleshoot the outlets and if it were to be found it was related to the fire, then a bill for repair of those outlets could be submitted to ******’s insurance company as a supplemental invoice for payment. 
  Door clanking:  ****** stated 20 years ago he had installed a 2x4 under the threshold to fix the clanking back then.  ******’s insurance company did not include that 2x4 in the scope of work for which they would pay.  Despite this, Maximum offered to return to do this for ****** but he refused stating he was going to “have a real door installer” do it.  Despite having completed all the work related to hanging the door, as provided by the Insurance Company in the scope of work, Maximum refunded this amount to ****** to handle it how he wished.  At this point, there were no further issues between the parties as ****** received a credit against the outstanding invoice for the amounts the insurance company agreed to pay for the kitchen cabinets and the door.  ****** understood and agreed with Maximum’s position that it would not be returning to the property.
  These were the only issues remaining as of 2/9/2022.  The money had been credited and the remaining balance was due to Maximum.   Subsequent to that, collection efforts began on the file as ****** had refused to pay the final amount due.  ****** then retained counsel.  More than a dozen emails were sent to ******’s counsel requesting information on ******’s claims, and have resulted in no meaningful dialogue regarding resolution.  ****** claims that Maximum owes him money but neither he nor his counsel have ever detailed what amount he believes he is owed and for what purpose he believes he is owed additional money. Attempts to resolve the issue with ******’s counsel were woefully unsuccessful due to the lack of communication and direct communication between Maximum’s counsel and ****** is not permitted as he is represented by counsel.  As a result we have referred the file out for litigation and the preparation of a civil Complaint for Money Damages against the *******.
  ****** filed the instant complaint with issues that have appeared after the claims were resolved in February 2022.  The photographs attached have not been authenticated to establish when they were taken and by whom.  The photo titled “pantry pot kaput” is confusing as it does not clearly set forth what it is referencing other than the title and I am not sure what a pantry pot being kaput has to do with work by Maximum.  The photo titled “Trim pushed out from shim” appears to depict ongoing construction work with drywall being installed.  As ****** said he was having someone else fix the door, we can only assume that this occurred after Maximum was last at the property in August 2021. The “Filthy shelf 81 days after fire” is a shelf that ****** informed Maximum in the summer of 2021 that he and his wife would clean themselves.  “Soot on cabinet tops”, Maximum has not been at the property since the summer of 2021.  ****** wanted to move back into the property before it was completed and Maximum sent a crew to do an initial clean of the property.  ****** was not charged for this cleaning. After the disagreement between the parties arose, ****** was also credited back the costs of final cleaning.  That final cleaning would have included cabinet tops and shelves.  Thus, ****** has received the credit for those costs to have it completed by another crew.  The photo “Garage Ceiling cracks” is difficult to make out. However, ****** has never raised this to Maximum.   Again, there is no reference as to when this photo was taken and if it is in the same condition now.  If any of these issues are related to work completed by Maximum, there is a warranty on the work (that was not refunded for ****** to complete himself or with another contractor).  However, the final bill must be paid for that warranty to arise. 
  Maximum’s last information was that ****** was going to have the door clanking fixed by a real door installer – and a contractor fix the kitchen cabinets and an electrician to troubleshoot the outlets.  Since the issues complained about in this complaint are new, then we can only surmise they occurred after ****** had new contractors come through.  Maximum cannot verify any of this information as ****** is represented by counsel.  Unfortunately, his counsel has not detailed any of these complaints to Maximum either. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 08/25/2022

  On May 17, 2021, the ******* entered into a contract with Maximum for repairs to their home after a fire. The ******* insurance company and Maximum agreed to a scope of work, which was related to the fire and a price for that work in the amount of $80,375.90. The ******* insurance carrier is only obligated to pay that which is directly related to the fire or to the work done in repairing damages for the fire. The relationship between the ******* and Maximum deteriorated greatly toward the fall of 2021. There were disagreements on what was related to the fire and what was not. Maximum was last at the property in late summer 2021.

  The only disagreement I am aware of was two electrical sockets not working. Maximum’s electrician trouble shot the outlets but failed to fix it.

  In February 2022, *** ****** voiced concerns over five issues – 1) kitchen cabinets that were no longer setting flush to the ceiling 2) a carpet/tile cleaning bill 3) trim for an attic access point 4) two outlets not working in a bathroom and 5) a “clanking” under his garage door threshold. The carpet cleaning bill and attic trim were resolved immediately.

  Maximum met with me at the property on Aug 24, 2021. **** had ******** (the drywall subcontractor) with him. They agreed to return to fix the kitchen ceiling when ******** returned from taking his daughter to collage in mid Sept 2021. Also, the two dead electric sockets would be addressed as well as the door threshold. So, from Aug 2021until yet today Maximum walked away from their contract. I can only surmise that they knew it would be less expensive to credit the unfinished work than to fix the problems. So, even though I originally agreed to accepting the cabinet credit I now realize that is not a fair and reasonable offer. It will cost much more for me to hire another contractor to fix the Maximum’s poor workmanship. Maximum defaulted on the contract in Aug 2021.

  The carpet cleaning bill was double billed and removed and appropriate attic trim credit provided.

  Of the complaints *** ****** initially raised to Maximum, in February 2022, the only ones remaining unresolved were kitchen cabinets not flush to the ceiling, threshold clanking, and two outlets not working. *** ****** has refused to pay the final amount due to Maximum in the amount of $6,898.21.

  The issues were raised in Aug 2021, Maximum stopped work shortly after that time and refused to reply to many many emails, text messages and phone messages. I thought they went out of business. I had only received an invoice dated July 22, 2021 which had numerous errors, none of which Maximum has addressed. They finally responded with legal counsel in late Feb 2022. Unfortunately, over the passing of five months of no responses new issues have been identified and Maximum is now refusing to correct them. On one of the issues, they said I should go back to USAA and have them provide the funding required to fix something Maximum caused in their poor workmanship.

  Kitchen Cabinets: ******** insurance company only paid for the existing cabinets to be removed from the wall and then reinstalled. The cabinets went into the same holes as they came out of. ****** claims it was ceiling work that caused the issue and Maximum disagreed. Ultimately, Maximum refunded the amounts from the insurance company for the kitchen cabinets so that ****** could have another contractor install the cabinets the way he wanted them to be done.

  Wrong! Maximum’s electrician caused the cabinet issue when he cut the ceiling light holes in the wrong location – too close to the cabinets with one light ½ way above the cabinet seated to the ceiling. ******** and **** agreed it was a problem and had someone patch over the bad holes. The patching is what caused the ceiling to be uneven and cabinets not seat properly. **** and ******** agreed to fix it on Aug 24, 2021. After that on-site meeting Maximum went silent and did not respond until I had Beavercreek Auxiliary Fire Department call them to see if they were still in business. Maximum agreed that they caused the issue now they say they disagreed with the problem. This is just plain false.

  A photo of kitchen cabinets not flush to the wall is a new complaint.

  This photo was provided to support the fact that the Maximum cabinet installers were just sloppy and not paying attention to quality construction. They did properly reset that cabinet. Remains a complaint on the inferior quality of craftsmanship I experienced with Maximum.

  As ****** was credited the money for the kitchen cabinetry to have another contractor finish it the way he wanted and Maximum assumes that ****** did so.

  So un-customer oriented – just finish it the way it was prior to the fire.

  Outlets not working: Maximum did not believe this was related to the fire as it was in a different part of the property from the fire. There was no indication these outlets worked prior to the fire and they were not included on the scope of work from ******** insurance company. Maximum advised ****** to have the electrician who worked at the property, or another electrician of his choosing, troubleshoot the outlets and if it were to be found it was related to the fire, then a bill for repair of those outlets could be  submitted to ******** insurance company as a supplemental invoice for payment.

  It is not a different part of the fire. Those socket’s electrical wires ran right over the kitchen ceiling that Maximum removed and replaced and their subcontractor removed and replaced insulation. I informed Maximum the sockets worked prior to the fire. I often used the outside one for my car vacuum and the night light plugged into the bathroom socket was always on. Maximum’s electrician did complete some troubleshooting but since the new insulation was above the kitchen ceiling, I guess they gave up. I hired an electrician to troubleshoot and fix the problem. He found the circuit was open somewhere above the kitchen ceiling that Maximum removed and replaced.

  Door clanking: ****** stated 20 years ago he had installed a 2x4 under the threshold to fix the clanking back then. ******** insurance company did not include that 2x4 in the scope of work for which they would pay. Despite this, Maximum offered to return to do this for ****** but he refused stating he was going to “have a real door installer” do it. Despite having completed all the work related to hanging the door, as provided by the Insurance Company in the scope of work, Maximum refunded this amount to ****** to handle it how he wished.

  Not quite correct. I installed the 2x4 prior to installing the door because there was insufficient plate depth support for the threshold. The threshold I installed never clanked. I reminded the Maximum installer to do the same and he installed the 2x4 into the same holes left from the original door. I noticed vertical movement of the threshold and asked the installer to address it, he agreed but it never happened. It appears the bottom of the old and new door thresholds are different and the new one doesn’t even touch the 2x4 nor the plate. There is about a 1/8 inch gap below the new door threshold. There is no caulking below the threshold. I guess Maximum’s door installers think it is okay for ants and bugs to have easy access to the house? I cannot determine why the threshold doesn’t sit firmly on the plate. Probably will have to remove the door to fix it correctly. This problem was caused by Maximum installers not installing the door correctly. After doing some trouble shooting, I now disagree to accept the install credit. 

  At this point, there were no further issues between the parties as ****** received a credit against the outstanding invoice for the amounts the insurance company agreed to pay for the kitchen cabinets and the door. ****** understood and agreed with Maximum’s position that it would not be returning to the property.

  These were the only issues remaining as of 2/9/2022. The money had been credited and the remaining balance was due to Maximum. Subsequent to that, collection  efforts began on the file as ****** had refused to pay the final amount due. ****** then retained counsel. More than a dozen emails were sent to ******** counsel requesting information on ******** claims, and have resulted in no meaningful dialogue regarding resolution.

  Maximum here alludes that I “retained counsel”. It should be noted that I retained counsel because Maximum’s only contact between Aug 21 and Feb 2022 was from their “retained” counsel, who was the owner’s wife, and had heard only parts of the issues and to date has not addressed all the issues identified.

  ****** claims that Maximum owes him money but neither he nor his counsel have ever detailed what amount he believes he is owed and for what purpose he believes he is owed additional money. Attempts to resolve the issue with ******** counsel were woefully unsuccessful due to the lack of communication and direct communication between Maximum’s counsel and ****** is not permitted as he is represented by counsel. As a result we have referred the file out for litigation and the preparation of a civil Complaint for Money Damages against the *******.

  I will consult with my lawyer as to what he has provided and if need be will forward additional supporting information. Maximum needs to reread my message to them dated Sept 22, 2021. $5,822.65 was identified and Maximum  continues to ignore.

  ****** filed the instant complaint with issues that have appeared after the claims were resolved in February 2022. The photographs attached have not been authenticated to establish when they were taken and by whom.

  The photo titled “pantry pot kaput” is confusing as it does not clearly set forth what it is referencing other than the title and I am not sure what a pantry pot being kaput has to do with work by Maximum.

  I am not certain Maximum even read my BBB complaint. Here is excerpt from the complaint regarding the pantry and kitchen lights that Maximum’s electrician installed: “Of the 10 ceiling light fixtures installed by Maximums electrician 6 of them have  completely stopped working. We are running on undercabinet lights in the pantry. I researched the  LED light manufacturer and they are the cheapest lowest quality I could find on Ebay and Amazon. 

  A-Abel has given me a quote for $1,050 to replace all 10 of them.” Seven of the ten cans are now  kaput (BROKEN – not working and need to be replaced)! 

  The photo titled “Trim pushed out from shim” appears to depict ongoing construction work with drywall being installed. As ****** said he was having someone else fix the door, we can only assume that this occurred after Maximum was last at the property in August 2021.

  The trim issue was fixed by Maximum last Aug shortly after I identified it to **** via email and pictures. Whom ever prepared Maximum’s reply has not is not well informed on the problematic workmanship. It is resolved but is still a complaint about Maximum’s craftmanship.

  The “Filthy shelf 81 days after fire” is a shelf that ****** informed Maximum in the summer of 2021 that he and his wife would clean themselves. “Soot on cabinet tops”, Maximum has not been at the property since the summer of 2021. ****** wanted to move back into the property before it was completed and Maximum sent a crew to do an initial clean of the property. ****** was not charged for this cleaning. After the disagreement between the parties arose, ****** was also credited back the costs of final cleaning. That final cleaning would have included cabinet tops and shelves. Thus, ****** has received the credit for those costs to have it completed by another crew.

  The “dirty shelf” picture was included in the complaint because it needs to be known that Maximum’s Restoration process is dinked up. Fully cleaning cabinets before installing into a freshly painted house reeks of common sense.  The cabinet installers were oblivious to soot and dirt, there remains sooty finger prints on the freshly painted kitchen ceiling that Maximum Restoration installer implanted. If the soot on the tops of the cabinets were to be addressed during final cleaning the cabinets would have to be removed again to get at the tops of the cabinets, duh. It regardless of subsequent actions, it’s still a complaint regarding Maximum’s restoration abilities. Moving back into the residence was fully coordinated and agreed to, not only with Maximum but also with the county building inspector.

  Maximum’s responder states “After disagreement between the parties arose, …” I was not aware we had any disagreement until Feb 2022. In late Aug 2021 no work was being completed. In Oct, Maximum was not responding to my phone calls, text messages and emails. I am very patient, and I thought maybe Maximum was having employee COVID issues. At our on -site meeting in Aug 2021 Maximum was gung ho and would complete the work to my satisfaction and I’d “have a smile on my face” (**** McCartney). 

  The photo “Garage Ceiling cracks” is difficult to make out. However, ****** has never raised this to Maximum. Again, there is no reference as to when this photo was taken and if it is in the same condition now. If any of these issues are related to work completed by Maximum, there is a warranty on the work (that was not refunded for ****** to complete himself or with another contractor). However, the final bill must be paid for that warranty to arise.

  The photo was taken 3/14/2022.  

  Maximum’s last information was that ****** was going to have the door clanking fixed by a real door installer – and a contractor fix the kitchen cabinets and an electrician to troubleshoot the outlets.

  See attached for PDF version of response

  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/29/2022

  As an initial matter, Maximum Restoration General Contractors does not have an electrician on staff.  Any electric work is done by subcontractors.   To the remainder of *** ******** allegations, Maximum restates that it has referred this matter to its outside counsel to file a lawsuit against *** *** **** ****** and thus, any responses are made with that in mind.
  There are marked differences between construction contracts by private individuals and construction contracts for insurance restoration (such as *******).  *** ******** response illuminates the lack of understanding of this.  For instance, if the electric sockets were damaged as a result of work being done on demolition, this is a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of the demo work and thus would undoubtedly be covered by the insurance company in a supplemental invoice. 
  As far as the kitchen cabinets, these were done as a detach and reattach per the scope of work.  It is *** ******** opinion that the difference in spacing for these cabinets is due to ceiling mud as a result of work done by the electrician.  Again, even if it were as a result of the subcontractor’s work, this would be reasonable and foreseeable and again, undoubtedly covered by a supplemental invoice or alternatively, by the subcontractor..  Alternatively, if it was as a result of rehanging cabinets back in the same decades-old holes, this likewise may have been something addressed with ******’s insurance company and again, part of the covered loss
  As ****** states in his reply, he received a final invoice in July 2021 and Maximum likewise issued its final invoice and supplement to the insurance adjustor, indicating completion of its contract.  Mr. ****** refused to pay the invoice and then, again as stated in his reply, raised “issues” for the first time in August 2021. 
  There has been no agreement regarding the kitchen cabinets other than the ******* would accept the insurance company’s payment amount for the kitchen cabinets.  There is a difference of opinion as to the causes and the remedies.   See above.
  Finishing the work “the way it was prior to the fire” is not a customer service issue.  It is what the insurance policy contract requires.  ****** signed a contract with his insurance company that any losses are covered to the extent of returning the property to pre-loss condition, in other words, “the way it was prior to the fire.”  That is not a Maximum term of service, it is ******’s agreement with his insurance company.
  As far as the door clanking, again, this was not a covered loss by ******’s insurance company.  According to ******, he states the 2x4 was installed as he asked – in the same holes the former one came from.  ****** states, “I cannot determine why the threshold doesn’t sit firmly on the plate” then immediately states to the contrary that it was caused by Maximum not installing the door correctly.  Again, this is another of ******’s opinions as to the cause of something.  In February 2022, Maximum offered to return to look at the door clanking, and ****** declined stating he would “have a real door installer” do it.  That was the conclusion of the matter and the final invoice was sent again to ******.  It was at that time ****** retained counsel.
  It appears that ****** captioned the photo “pantry pot kaput” when it actually related to a canned light not working.  This is a new issue since the last communications in February 2022. Incidentally, this issue was never raised by ******** counsel either.  
  ****** attached a photo titled “trim pushed out from shim” but now states it was addressed before August 2021 so this has no relevance to the current issues.   Likewise, the “dirty shelf” picture was not a complaint addressed between ****** and Maximum’s general counsel and ****** was paid by his insurance company to hire someone to complete the final cleaning.  Again, the garage ceiling issue was never raised to Maximum, its general counsel or it’s outside counsel either by ****** or ******’s counsel.  This BBB complaint was the first time Maximum heard of this.
  This is not the proper forum to address contractural issues that remain between the parties.  Maximum has both general counsel and outside litigation counsel that have repeatedly reached out to ******’s counsel seeking information in an attempt to resolve issues and have received zero information as to any new complaints or any calculation of what ****** claims as damages.  ****** is using this platform in an effort to resolve contract disagreements between the parties.  Each party has counsel and if information is available with regard to the issues raised by ****** then ******’s attorney should provide that to Maximum’s counsel.  If ****** is no longer represented by his attorney then he can provide it directly to either Maximum’s general counsel or its outside counsel.  If ****** intends to provide information regarding his claims and damages to Maximum’s counsel, he should do so as soon as possible.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/28/2022

  Complaint: 1*******
  
  I am rejecting this response because: Maximum Restoration's reply is just a repeat of previous unacceptable responses.  They continue to ignore many of the issues I identified.  It is now nearly one year since they defaulted on this contract.  It took five months before they finally responded to my inquires.  Then in February 2022 they responded with legal counsel and now for another seven months they simply repeat unacceptable responses.  This company should have a BBB C- or even a D rating.  The main deficiencies are 1. Installing inferior light fixtures, 2. improperly installing a door, 3. improperly re-installing kitchen cabinets leaving ugly sooty fingerprints and makeshift grout to hide the voids, 4. continuing to invoice overhead against work that was removed from the insurance company cost estimate of the statement of work, 5 continuing to invoice profit on work that was removed from the insurance companies estimate and statement of work, 6. refusing to fix two electric sockets they broke either during demolition or kitchen ceiling replacement, 7. continuing to invoice 90 hours of demolition work that did not occur, plus profit and O/h on those unused hours, and 8. continuing to invoice O/H and profit on the $13,500 painting cost estimate that was removed from the contract due to their painter not showing up on five occasion.  The only effort Maximum Restoration expended was five phone calls to the painter to determine his arrival date.  Certainly, this DOES NOT warrant Maximum to keep $2,700 of the applicable O/H and Profit on the painting effort.   Finally, they continue to invoice O/H, profit, AND state taxes on pantry and garage cabinets that I bought and installed. Their business practices are unfair and in some cases illegal.

  Buyers be very very cautious if considering using Maximum Restoration.

   

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

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/17/2022

  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.

  I hired Maximum Restoration to remodel my house after a fire.Before they started work on the house on the evening of wednesday 3/30 i received a notification that someone was using one of my ring cameras.I had been at the house removing salvageable items just before that so I knew exactly where it was.We went to the house and found the camera missing along with all our TVs,mounts,sound bar,tablets,laptops,and a bunch of other items including a lot of prescription pills.I tried to call maximum but got no answer.I removed the key from the lockbox in case the person came back to steal more items.Thursday morning i got a hold of ***** and told her what happened, she said it was their policy not to take anything even if its going into a dumpster.She said shed call **** and call me right back.A few hours later I got a call from ****** who admitted he and his friend came into our house and stole our property.I told him I didn't care about the tvs because they were going in the trash but to bring everything else back.He said he would bring it back that evening or the next morning and that the demo was supposed to start on Friday so we should remove the rest of our stuff that day.We went to the house right after that phone call on thursday and found the doors open and a crew had removed all but a few things out of the first floor of our home and had their truck bed and trunks full of our belongings and the rest was in dumpsters. I had the key in my pocket so I asked them how they got in the house but they would only speak Spanish.I tried calling ***** and ****** a couple times no answer and texted ***** that there were people in our house.****** came to the house and made the crew leave and found out they had broke in a window to get in the house.Friday ****** brought back some of the stolen belongings but not all.We went through the dumpster and found some items but most were damaged or gone.**** took 6 days to call me, lies and changes the timeline of how things happened.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/06/2022

  Maximum Restoration was contracted to remediate fire damage at Mr. *****'s home on March 23, 2022 from a fire in September 2021.  The original meeting with Mr. ***** took place on March 21.  As the attached email explains, Mr. ***** had gone through a public adjustor, a content team and met with other contractors in the six months prior to Maximum becoming involved in the project.  Due to these delays, Mr. ***** expressed urgency in moving the project forward due to the limited amount of living expenses they had remaining from their insurance proceeds.  According to Mr. *****, he has been compensated for his non-salvageable contents from his insurance proceeds.  These are apparently the contents he now claims he wants to keep and that they apparently are not "non-salvageable" for insurance payment purposes.   Several photographs are attached for your review.  These photos were taken prior to the start of and during the short period of time Maximum was on the job site. 
  An email was sent to Mr. and Mrs. ***** on March 28, 2022 explicitly outlining the production schedule and what was and would be happening with relation to the work done at the property.  Two days later, Wednesday, March 30, Maximum employees and subcontractors were on site at the property removing the damaged contents.  The subcontractor is a pastor and inquired about repurposing the damaged TVs and a tablet.  While this is not the policy of Maximum, the subcontractor did remove those items.  To clarify, these items were going into the dumpster as Mr. ***** had already been paid for their value by his insurance company.  Mr. ***** objected to this and the items were returned to him immediately.  At no time, did Mr. ***** object to the continuation of work.  The following day, the subcontracted demo crew reported to the property to continue per the contract.  The key was no longer in the lockbox where it had been so the demo crew removed a window to access the property and continue the work.  Mr. ***** contacted an employee of Maximum who reported to the job site immediately.  It was at this time that Mr. ***** first reported that prescription pills were missing from the property. Demo was stopped and employees of Maximum returned to the property on April 4. At that time, Mr. ***** was asked if he wanted to continue work to which he replied he did.  Employees of Maximum pulled out every bag from the dumpster that was on site and went through the contents with Mr. ***** so that he could take out property he wanted.  Mr. ***** is well aware that several bottles of prescription pills were in those bags and no employee or subcontractor took pills or bottles.  As you can see from the attached photos, the property was in disarray.  The subcontractor's job was to clear all contents out of the property so that the construction estimate could be completed according to Mr. *****'s timeline. The *****'s had vacated the property due to the damage.  The entirety of the property in the home had been present and exposed, after the fire, for over six months before Maximum began work.  It was Mr. *****'s decision to continue the work after these issues. 
  On April 5, the demo crew and Maximum employee returned to finish the demo with Mr. ***** present onsite again.  Once the work had concluded for the day, Mr. ***** was informed they would return on April 11.  This would allow time to have new dumpsters delivered for continuation of the demo work.  As you can see in the attached photos, the dumpsters were tarped over and bungee corded when not in use.  It was after this that I had a call with Mr. ***** and we both expressed hesitancy on going forward with the project.  Ultimately, in an email responding to Mr. *****, Maximum agreed to release the contract after payment of the direct costs incurred for the work Mr. ***** agreed to.  This email went unanswered. Therefore, pursuant to the statutory lien rights in the State of Ohio, a mechanics lien was placed to secure payment. 
  Mr. ***** signed a contract, consented to the work and to the continuation of work. Mr. ***** has received payment for the work Maximum performed and has refused to pay the invoice. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/06/2022

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  ****'s response was False. They stole from us before the demo started. They took alot more than tvs and a tablet including laptops, prescriptions, and several other items that were not returned. I removed the key from the lockboxbox and they broke in a window to access my property. I never agreed to continue with maximum everytime ****** asked me I said to have **** call me. We had a lot of contents that was not paid for by the insurance company. When **** finally did call me I wasn't happy with his response so I decided to terminate maximum. I was not paid by the insurance company for ****'s invoice. I had to pay another company to do the job maximum didnt finish.
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/07/2022

  Mr. ***** informed myself and other employees of Maximum that he had been "cashed out" for his contents.  This would seem to indicate by the choice of words and the context of the conversation in which they were used, that Mr. ***** received payment for his damaged contents.  That would be inclusive of the bill to remove said contents. 

  As far as theft of goods, there is no basis in fact for this. The items they complained about, TVs and a tablet, were returned to Mr. ***** despite his own admission that the TVs were going into the trash, and therefore had no value to him.  The prescription pills that he speaks of that were left in the damaged property for six months, were not taken by any employee or agent of Maximum.  Bags and bags of contents were removed from the dumpster, opened and reviewed by Mr. *****.  Now Mr. ***** claims there were "a lot more" things, but without any specific identification as to what those are. 

  The crews returned to the property on the days after this incident, pursuant to Mr. *****'s consent.  Mr. ***** could have at any time told them to leave the property if in fact he did not consent for them to be there as he claims now.  He was onsite several times. The crews left only when they had filled the dumpster and needed to wait for the dumpster to be removed and new one placed.  When told the crew would return the following week, Mr. ***** asked to speak to me, ****, and I called him the following day.  

  As a result of that conversation, both myself and Mr. *****, expressed reservations about continuing on with the contract and agreed to discuss it again after taking a few days to reflect.  It was after that, that Mr. ***** emailed me to cancel his contract.  I agreed, per our previous conversation, as I had some uneasiness about the veracity and transparency of Mr. *****, and how productive a continued relationship would be.  I sent the email, that I previously attached to my original response, agreeing to release him from the contract, waive all labor costs of Maximum and only invoice for the direct costs of the team that removed the contents to the dumpster and the dumpster itself. 

   

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/12/2022

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  This is just more of ****'s lies. I never said I had been cashed out to you or anyone else. In fact what I did say was that we had more contents than coverage so I needed to try to save as much as I could.

  The fact is you stole from us. A lot more than a TV and tablet. I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself. You should take responsibility for your actions and you should have made it right when it happened.

  It took you 6 days to call me back. Then after the call I decided to terminate maximum.

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