| 08/11/2014||Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details|X
$6,167.11 original estimate. 75% of listed items were not performed or needed. Machines didn't work, workers didn't check, bills & lien threatened.
Senior hired company to remove padding & dry carpet after September, 2013 flood. Senior paid $500 up front. Work wasn't covered by insurance.
Many stated items weren't needed or performed (removing toilet and tiles from bathroom cement floor, etc.), some machines didn't work, extra fans weren't supplied, workers didn't check when promised, workers said air movers were turned to the wrong volume, carpet wasn't elevated which was needed to dry it, etc. Carpet was still very wet. $2,606 was invoice amount for work which wasn't done. Carpet wasn't cleaned or dried.
Company President asked for $1,236 ($500 paid + 1,236 = $1,736) if paid that day, if no more work was done, and $2,972 (an additional $1,726 for one day) if equipment were left 1 more day. No more work was done, equipment was removed. Senior paid another firm $1,280.23 to finish the work.
Company later denied making these offers.
Company sent 10/01/13 invoice for $4,561, an 11/11/13 invoice for $2,606.15. Senior sent 11/16/13 check for $1,236.32 to settle the disputed amount. Company received but didn't cash it. Company sent a 12/12/13 statement of lien and notice of lien to be filed if $3,465.26 was not paid in 10 days and said it would be turned over for collection, and there would be a lien on the property.
($6,167.26 original estimate - 2,606 = $3,561.26)
Company's claim is for a claim of money owed.
Senior's claim is for wrongful billing, negligence, failure to perform, fraud on a senior, etc. The charges are unreasonable for the shoddy and incomplete work.
Senior paid $500 up front plus a check for $1,236.32, a total of $1,736.32).
$1,,736.32 is more than enough, more than their work was worth.
Accept the paid amount and the tendered check, a total of $1,236.32.
This was the amount offered by the Company President.
Authorization for emergency service was signed and dated by client, and insurance claim number given on 9/16/13 (attached). Services were performed and owner signed for equipment for drying (attached). Owner signed a release of liability for the services they did not want performed (no demo no powerwash). Original estimate given was for services and equipment for 3 days of mitigation work. On 9/18/13 client did not want to complete job, technician noted on signed release of claims that the floor was still wet, client refused to sign (attached). Attached bill accounts for ONLY the services rendered all charges that were on original estimate and not performed were removed. Pricing used is insurance industry standard pricing. We cannot account for fees of other contractors nor if the client used a certified restoration company. Attached letter in file goes over the details which the client has not accepted. I see no notes in the file reflecting that a check was ever received.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Letters from ********* ****** and ***** ********* to the President of Property Doctors, Inc. dated October 23, 2013, November 16, 2013, and December 12, 2013 will be faxed to the BBB at XXX-XXX-XXXX today.
The letters state the amount $1,236.32 offered by Property Doctors" President to pay this bill in full. The November 16, 2013 letter shows a copy of the check sent with it.
Property Doctors has never denied receiving this check. They only say there is "no note in the file." The check is there. A corporation is presumed to know the contents of its files. A letter mailed is presumed delivered.
If Property Doctors will accept $1,236.32 now, we will stop payment on the first check, tender another check to them for the same amount, as an accord and satisfaction as full payment of a disputed claim, at the office of the BBB at a set time and place, and that will resolve this claim in full.
If it is not resolved, our other claims for fraud on a senior and possibly slander of title (if the lien is recorded) remain.
The ground was not saturated here, it did not continue to rain here, and water did not continue to enter the house here. Property Doctors' people came from the Boulder area, where that may have been true, but it was not true here. The window wells were pumped out by us and three neighbors the day of the heavy rain, and no further water entered. We repeat: no further water came in after that day (as they claimed). A trench was dug the same day by us and the three neighbors the day of the rain along and past the side of the house toward the street, into which any and all possible water would drain and flow. We are faxing to the BBB a weather report for September, 2013 from an Aurora local reporting station showing no rain here September 16-21, 2013.
The letters show Claimant's attempts to resolve the matter, by paying the amount offered by the President of Property Doctors.
We request mediation through the BBB.
We are faxing four (4) documents referred to above. Please confirm they were all received.
We faxed the four (4) documents to both addresses shown in your correspondence, XXX-XXX-XXXX and XXX-XXX-XXXX, on 12/24/13
This document is being sent to you from e-mail address *********@comcast.net, at my request.
No live person is presently available by phone at your locations. Please confirm by telephone and by e-mail the receipt by the BBB of all of these documents on 12/24/13. Thank you.
| 01/27/2014||Billing / Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details|X
Property Doctors is charging us $8,400 for work that our insurance company says should have been $2,800.
Property Doctors was contracted to drain a 1000 sq ft crawl space of a rental that flooded as a result of a pipe breaking. They never provided an estimate for the work. They never contacted us, the property owners, but said they were communicating with the tenant. The tenant did not hire them. After 18 days, the tenant called to ask when the fans would be removed. We had to call them to remove their fans. Our insurance co said it should only have taken 5 days and estimated $2,800 for the entire job. The Property Doctors submitted an initial bill for $11,500. When we called to question them, they reduced it to $8,400. Our insurance company still says it's completely unreasonable based on the information they provided.
To have the bill reduced to the insurance approved amount of $2,800.
Homeowner had every opportunity to meet us at the property, we were asked to deal with tenant who would be making arrangements for entry and scheduling of monitoring and mitigation services.
Authorization dated July 10 received via fax was received from homeowner with no other instructions then authorizing work to be completed and bill the insurance per authorization. We began mitigation and dry out of flooded crawl space, due to pipe break, a loss that is covered by insurance. It is not uncommon in emergency disaster response to proceed with mitigation without an estimate, unless client has expressly requested an estimate prior to commencing work (in this case authorization had been received to proceed).
Insurance policies contain provisions which expressly require the insured to mitigate damages to covered property. Such provisions usually require the insured to either take affirmative action to mitigate its damages or otherwise protect the property from further damage upon the occurrence of a covered loss.
On 11/14 company educated client that the loss was an insured covered loss and encouraged client to contact insurance company to open a claim.
An insurance claim was opened by client. Our company has been in contact with insurance adjuster and the file documentation is currently being reviewed by adjuster. It is common practice in the industry to provide the insurance company supporting documentation to support services provided.
Final Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Property Doctors response is still not adequate to us. To begin with the beginning as Property Doctors did, the invoices were never sent to us, but to the tenant of the property. We did not know of the invoice until October when Property Doctors called for the first time to our number to tell us they were going to lien the property because we had not paid the invoice. We are not sure where the other messages had been left, but we did not receive them. October was the first time we heard from Property Doctors. We are guessing that the messages were left with the tenant since they Property Doctors mentioned that all communication was with the tenant. Property Doctors was asked to work with the tenant directly for access and schedule coordination, but we would expect that Property Doctors would communicate with the homeowner as a matter of practice, to keep the homeowner informed.
After we received the $11,559.03 invoice, we spoke with Property Doctors to discuss the surprisingly huge bill for draining & drying out a 1,000 sq. ft. dirt crawl space. There had been NO communication from Property Doctors to tell us the need for the massive amounts of equipment and time needed to drain the crawl space. Property Doctors had been asked only to drain the water, however, we unfortunately did not have that documented on the authorization form. When we told Property Doctors we didn't plan to file an insurance claim, they adjusted the invoice down to $8.409.49. After receiving the revised invoice, we talked to Property Doctors, asking questions regarding the long period of time supposedly required. We also asked why monitoring was not going on every day throughout that period. Property Doctors was extremely rude and would not explain things adequately. We have not talked to them since. Their primary response was, "If you file a claim with your insurance company, they will cover this." It seems to us that they are overbilling since they assumed our insurance company would cover it.
As a result of invoice still being over $8,000, we were forced to file a claim as we could not pay it out of pocket. According to our insurance company, who uses the same Xactimate estimating guidelines as Property Doctors, they believe Property Doctors is intentionally overbilling us for the work and that the work was not properly performed or documented with daily moisture readings. As mentioned in an earlier entry, this is only a 1000 sq. ft. dirt crawl space for which Property Doctors billed us for 10 fans when our insurance company indicates that 6 fans would have been the standard. And, according to our insurance company, it should have only taken 5 days, not 18 days. In fact, after the 18 days, our tenant called us to ask us when the fans would be removed. We had no idea they were still out there, so we called Property Doctors to ask them to remove the fans. We had to ask them to remove the fans. It makes us wonder how long they would have continued to bill us while the fans if we had not contacted them.
As mentioned in a previous entry, only one moisture reading for the crawl space was taken (readings were uploaded previously). Only humidity was monitored, except for one logged moisture reading. And, the monitoring was sporadic. After the initial setup on 7/12, no "monitoring" occurred for 4 days (7/16). Then the next "monitoring" was after another 4 days (7/22). Suddenly, there were daily charges for monitoring between 7/22 and 7/25. There was one more day of monitoring on 7/27 and the equipment was removed on 7/29. The "drying out" time was being based on humidity levels inside and outside, not on moisture levels. It is our understanding that this is not standard practice. It is also our understanding that it is not required that a dirt crawl space be completely dried as it is dirt.
It is also interesting that Property Doctors mentions that Colorado was experiencing flooding and severe thunderstorms during this time. Colorado did not have severe storms and flooding until September. In fact, in July, Colorado had 1.98 inches of moisture which is .18 inches less than normal.
On other point we feel it is important to mention is that we never asked Property Doctors to contact our insurance company on our behalf. They outright lied to our insurance company stating that we asked them to do so. Property Doctors seems to be trying to take advantage of people in emergency situations. I happened to find several similar complaints recently posted online about Property Doctors. Here are just two of them:
From 2 months ago: BEWARE!!! This company operates on SCAMMING people. I own a rental property in which the tenants called property doctors to fix a leak in the plumbing. I had no idea until i recieved a bill for $12,500!!!!!!!!!!!
SCAM SCAM SCAM!
From 4 months ago:
Do not use this company for emergency cleanup services, they do not provide estimates and then attempt to grossly overbill for their services! They attempted to bill us more than twice what our insurance company quoted using standard "Xactimate" guidelines and it has been a nightmare ever since trying to get them to correct their invoice.
We are asking Property Doctors to accept the insurance approved amount and the amount paid to date, $4, 135.45, as complete and fair payment.
Final Business Response
Homeowner authorized work 7/10/13, attached authorization (cause of loss FLOOD due to pipe break). No insurance info given.
Original invoice $11,559.03.
Between 7/11-10/22: Two messages and hard copy of bill sent to client
10/22: Client returned call reiterated they did not want to file a claim, would cash pay. Negotiated bill with homeowner to 8409.49. (Free drying from 7/10-7/18 crawl space was not drying discounted bill given on premise of CASH PAY immediately with billing starting on 7/19/13).
10/23: Revised bill mailed to client
10/31: Call from client stating all he wanted originally on 7/10 was extraction only. He never gave us instructions of that being said and nothing on authorization giving direction for extraction only. No RELEASE OF LIABILITY in file, RELEASING CONTRACTOR FROM PROPER DRYING PROCEDURES (no instruction other than authorization for emergency service). All contact was contractor meeting with tenant, constant communication with tenants. Client chose not to physically come to home and he instructed us to work with his tenants.
11/14: Discussion with Contractor Manager and spouse (Norma), she discussed with the contractor that cause of loss was from a water line that had broken and a plumber was out. Contractor encouraged spouse that the damages were a covered loss to open insurance claim. Insurance claim was opened and claim number provided to Contractor.
11/15: Original bill for $11,559 provided to insurance. Negotiations with insurance company began. Insurance company said they would not allow for extraction of water, did not feel that the crawl space was a part of the home/structure, would not allow payment for the proper number of drying equipment, felt that a dehumidifier was not needed, which meant that fans would only be blowing wet air. Adjuster seemed unfamiliar with IICRC guidelines for proper drying standards. IICRC protocol was sent to adjuster. She stated that her payment would be final and she was not happy that the claim wasn't opened sooner by the client.
Supporting documentation and photos sent to insurance adjuster supporting work performed.
During this time Colorado was experiencing inclement weather and flooding creating more humidity in turn further drying time to dry the crawl space.
It is of the opinion of the contractor that the insurance company is considering a portion of the loss weather related as weather conditions that produced severe thunderstorms and tornadoes along areas of the Front Range in Colorado had occurred after the client's pipe had broken. Insurance believes that only a portion of the bill is pipe related and only paying a percentage of the bill. Also insurance stated that drying the crawl space is not a part of the house. Insurance denying further coverage.
Contractor has made numerous attempts to speak with the insurance company to advocate on behalf of the client. Insurance company refuses to discuss any further negotiations. Our authorizations states that what isn't covered by the insurance company is the responsibility of the client.
| 07/02/2013||Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details|X
I was charged for the rental on the rental of three heaters where only one was used.
I was told that following a frozen pipe in the garage I would need heaters on the three levels of my townhouse. One was placed in the garage, the biggest one and the other two were placed in the second floor and the third.
The service person couldn't hook up the heater for the second floor and I had to do it for him.
The same person couldn't get the third floor heater started, calling his supervisor twice. (These were two butane heaters.) Unsuccessful at this he thought of using a match.
He left the house without the butane heaters working. The service person who picked the butane tanks up noted that they were full.
The one in the garage was the only one that worked.
I called the company and talked with the secretary who told me that she would talk to the president. I have yet to hear back from him or any other company representative.
For what little that was done, a plumber from Labellas spent 1 1/2 hours to fix everything and charged me only 180 dollars.
I don't mind paying for the one heater but not a number that I didn't use.
I was told by the service man who picked up the butane tanks and equipment that he would mention that only one heater was used.
I would pay for only what I used.
Business' Initial Response
Prior to dispatching a technician pricing was given up front that the job would be a minimum of $300-$400 dollars. We never billed individually on the heaters. The customer agreed to send a truck out. The one dragon heater that he used rents for $300 per day without the set up take down and emergency service call. The additional heaters were smaller. In addition, we had to leave an employee on sight to monitor because the customer left. The real price for one heater with fuel charges, pick up, and drop off, along with an added hour and a half for an employee on site would have exceeded $600. We gave him a deal and stayed within our verbal quote. We had three trips and 2 men along with the propane our emergency service call is $164 alone. These are our usual and customary pricing. The customer called and asked us to reduce the pricing and we said sorry that we could not he was informed up front of the minimum costs and only complained after we completed the job. The customer confirmed with the technician that picked up the heater that it would be $3 to 4 hundred. We have to pay for gas, time, vehicles, equipment and insurance etc....so the price is more than fair.
Consumer's Final Response
From: ****** **** (mailto:**********@yahoo.com)
Sent: Thursday, April 04, XXXX X:XX PM
To: Lori Lannholm
Subject: RE: Unresolved issue
I think since it was never quite clear how much I owed, 350 for one heater and two heaters that didn't work or 300 for just the heater that did. I don't believe that I have been treated very well by this company and so decline to pay either amounts.
--- On Tue, 4/2/13, Lori Lannholm <*********@denver.bbb.org> wrote:
From: Lori Lannholm <*********@denver.bbb.org>
Subject: RE: Unresolved issue
To: "****** ****" <**********@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 2:54 PM
What are you seeking for a resolution? Would you rather go to mediation? I attached mediation on this email. Normally in binding arbitration, people seek repairs, refund etc., not to explain something. In mediation, you can do this. Please advise of what you would like to do.
Lori Lannholm - Trade Practices & Arbitration Consultant
Better Business Bureau Serving Denver/Boulder
1020 Cherokee Street
Denver, CO XXXXX
Your BBB encourages you to Start With Trust® before you sign a contract, buy, or donate.
Always check first at denver.bbb.org
From: ****** **** (mailto:**********@yahoo.com)
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, XXXX X:XX PM
To: Lori Lannholm
Subject: Unresolved issue
From the very start I wanted Property Doctors to explain the bill for $350. I still don't have a clear explanation. I believed in fair treatment then and still do today.
Business' Final Response
See scanned invoice and contract provided by the business which shows the consumer agreed to the price provided. If the consumer has any other documentation regarding what the business told him, please provide the BBB a copy and we can resubmit it to the business again. At this time, the business is standing on their original position.