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:28/05/2025

  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.

  1. over charging 2. cleaning and disinfection not done properly

  Customer Answer

  Date: 30/05/2025

  Blue Star Projects to refund their over charging.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 31/05/2025

  *** ****

  ****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 13/06/2025

  1. Please look at photo #**. When there is no insulation behind the drywall at one side of the laundry room, Should he cut it at all? should the cut be that big?

  The wall on the laundry side (the one without insulation) and the adjacent closet wall were both wet. To dry the area properly, we needed to open one of the walls we chose the laundry side. No difference in cost.
  We made a standard 2-foot-high cut. The reason the length of the cut is about 3 feet is because there are wall studs in the way, every 16 inches and air can't flow past them effectively.
  Additionally, there's a U-channel metal track at the bottom of the wall, which can trap water. Opening the wall ensures we can properly dry that area and prevent mold.

  2. Please look at photos #**, 60, 61 and ** about the wall mounted phone jet and socket sets. They should be fitted well in the holes made in the double layer of the firewall. The technician made the holes so big that he muddied them. Should he have the skill to measure them and cut them?You can see it at phone #**. When he did the mud on the power socket set, a power outage happened. He then cleaned some mud out yet still did not set them right. When the painter fitted the covers back on them, they did not level to the surface of the wall. I had brought this to the attention of your coordinator and he did not address my concern. Please refund.

  The cuts around the phone and electrical boxes may appear rough because the firewall installation was performed as part of emergency mitigation and is considered temporary work.This should not be mistaken for final repairs. That level of detail is addressed in the rebuild stage by drywall trades.

  3.The escape of water from the washer incident happened on February 8, 2025 and your crew came on February 12, 2025. By that time, It was no longer an emergency response. Please refund the excess charge using emergency rate.

  We received initial notice of the incident on February 11, and immediately contacted all affected units the same day. The work was scheduled and began on February 12.
  While four days had passed since the incident, the conditions still met emergency criteria from an industry standpoint there was still moisture present, and structural materials were at risk of further damage or microbial growth.Emergency mitigation is not defined solely by the moment of water release, but by the presence of conditions that require immediate action to prevent secondary damage, which was still the case upon our arrival.
  As such, the charge applied is appropriate for the level of service provided and is in line with standard restoration industry practices.

  4. Water had time to saturate the walls and insulation waiting for over 80 hours. Some parts therefore had a high reading of moisture.
  The technician had already cut three big pieces of drywall in the laundry closet. Should the technician cut a length of thirteen feet of firewall, with a height of around two feet all across? Should he not cut windows of the firewall to allow drying.
  The dehydrating machine and fans were running for four days. The technician should know the effectiveness of moisture removal that worked together, therefore should not cut huge opening of walls. Some of the insulation in the bedroom had not been removed in those cut open walls. They were dried in their original space. Your technician did an invasive act for such a cut on the original building material. Who made such a decision?

  The decision to cut approximately thirteen feet in length by two feet in height on the firewall was based on moisture readings and industry best practices for effective mitigation. Our technicians are certified in Water Damage Restoration ensuring all work is performed according to recognized industry standards.

  5. The technician did not use sheets to cover the carpet.I walked barefoot on the carpet in my bedroom. I found loose tiny pieces of drywall and insulation. The clean up was not thorough. I found the wetness on my carpet. Your coordinator later informed me that your technician mixed mud with water on the carpet. Your company charged for cleaning and disinfection but they were not done properly. Please refund.

  Pictures 56 - 60, 62 66 from our report show the carpet was covered with plastic around the working area. There was a small area where our technician accidentally dropped a minor amount of mud. It was promptly cleaned using damp cloth. Such minor occurrences can happen during restoration work, but the technician addressed it immediately.
  6. Besides,help me understand your reason that a number of photos about the other parts of the bedroom and the washroom were included in your report to the property manager. It violated my privacy when those photos were not directly related to the water escape. Please explain.
  Photos of the washroom were taken to document moisture readings and confirm no water damage. Images of the bedroom were included to capture overall site conditions and layout, which assist in repair planning and insurance documentation. These photos are used solely for their intended purpose and shared only with parties directly involved in the file, such as property managers and insurance adjusters.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 14/06/2025

   
  Complaint: 23379507
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  ****** of Blue Star written:
  The wall on the laundry side (the one without insulation) and the adjacent closet wall were both wet. To dry the area properly, we needed to open one of the walls we chose the laundry side. No difference in cost.
  
  
  The fact is: three walls of the laundry room were cut open, not only one. The work of the technician was invasion and rough.
  
  
  ****** of Blue Star wrote:
  The cuts around the phone and electrical boxes may appear rough because the firewall installation was performed as part of emergency mitigation and is considered temporary work. This should not be mistaken for final repairs. That level of detail is addressed in the rebuild stage by drywall trades.
  
  
  The fact is the technician cut the holes around the phone and electrical boxes much larger than the boxes. The large holes did not hold those boxes properly to keep them aligned with the wall surface. The technician put so much mud to fill the holes and it caused electrician power outage in my apartment.
  
  
  ****** of Blue Star wrote: ....  the carpet was covered with plastic around the working area. There was a small area where our technician accidentally dropped a minor amount of mud. It was promptly cleaned using damp cloth. Such minor occurrences can happen during restoration work, but the technician addressed it immediately.
  
  
  The fact is the carpet was covered with plastic when the technician removed the building material. The carpet was not properly covered when he returned to put the firewall back. I was concerned about the losen small pieces of drywall and water on the carpet. Therefore I contacted the project coordinator. The coordinator then found out what had happened. It was not proper cleaning and disinfection.
  
  Please refund.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Chi **** ****

  Customer Answer

  Date: 24/06/2025

  Hello,
  
  I would like to add this response of the Blue Sky to the Complaint: 23379507:
  
  ****** wrote:
  We received initial notice of the incident on February 11, and immediately contacted all affected units the same day. The work was scheduled and began on February 12.
  While four days had passed since the incident, the conditions still met emergency criteria from an industry standpoint there was still moisture present, and structural materials were at risk of further damage or microbial growth. Emergency mitigation is not defined solely by the moment of water release, but by the presence of conditions that require immediate action to prevent secondary damage, which was still the case upon our arrival.
  As such, the charge applied is appropriate for the level of service provided and is in line with standard restoration industry practices.
  
  The fact is: ********* had not provided emergency service the same day he received the request. The conditions he described were exactly what the restoration industry for. This did not justify his charge at the emergency rate.
  

  

  Business Response

  Date: 27/06/2025

  1. The fact is:three walls of the laundry room were cut open, not only one. The work of the technician was invasion and rough.

  All three walls in the laundry room were wet, and that is precisely why all three were opened during the emergency mitigation. Moisture readings confirmed elevated levels across each wall, and as per industry standards (IICRC S500), drying behind drywall in a situation like this requires direct access. Drying walls without proper cavity access risks trapping moisture, which can lead to microbial growth or material degradation over time.

  2. The fact is the technician cut the holes around the phone and electrical boxes much larger than the boxes. The large holes did not hold those boxes properly to keep them aligned with the wall surface. The technician put so much mud to fill the holes and it caused electrician power outage in my apartment.
  
  As previously explained, temporary patching was never intended to serve as a final finish. Any permanent alignment or electrical adjustments should be completed during the repair phase.

  3. The fact is the carpet was covered with plastic when the technician removed the building material. The carpet was not properly covered when he returned to put the firewall back. I was concerned about the losen small pieces of drywall and water on the carpet. Therefore I contacted the project coordinator. The coordinator then found out what had happened. It was not proper cleaning and disinfection. Please refund.

  As previously noted, the minor debris and mud were promptly cleaned once identified. Since there was no contamination involved, this type of incidental contact does not require disinfection. The matter was handled appropriately at the time. With that in mind, we are prepared to offer you $100 refund as a gesture of goodwill. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/07/2025

   
  Complaint: 23379507
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  1. The fact is: three walls of the laundry room were cut open, not only one.The work of the technician was invasion and rough.
  All three walls in the laundry room were wet, and that is precisely why all three were opened during the emergency mitigation. Moisture readings confirmed elevated levels across each wall, and as per industry standards (IICRC S500), drying behind drywall in a situation like this requires direct access. Drying walls without proper cavity access risks trapping moisture, which can lead to microbial growth or material degradation over time.
  Response:Your previous response stated one of the two sides of the laundry room was to cut open. With this response, you justified the cut open of all three walls.

  
  2. The fact is the technician cut the holes around the phone and electrical boxes much larger than the boxes. The large holes did not hold those boxes properly to keep them aligned with the wall surface. The technician put so much mud to fill the holes and it caused electrician power outage in my apartment.
  As previously explained, temporary patching was never intended to serve as a final finish. Any permanent alignment or electrical adjustments should be completed during the repair phase.
  Response:The fact is the re-installation of the firewall is permanent, it is not a temporary patching. The cutting of the holes around the phone and electrical boxes should fit the boxes well. The work of your technician limited the final adjustments. Shifting responsibility to the final finish is not professional.
  

  3. The fact is the carpet was covered with plastic when the technician removed the building material. The carpet was not properly covered when he returned to put the firewall back. I was concerned about the losen small pieces of drywall and water on the carpet. Therefore I contacted the project coordinator. The coordinator then found out what had happened. It was not proper cleaning and disinfection.Please refund.
  As previously noted, the minor debris and mud were promptly cleaned once identified. Since there was no contamination involved, this type of incidental contact does not require disinfection. The matter was handled appropriately at the time. With that in mind, we are prepared to offer you $100 refund as a gesture of goodwill. 
  Response:On your invoice, you have identified cleaning and disinfection ******** had taken photos of my bedroom and my bathroom. You wrote as per industry standards (IICRC S500), drying behind drywall in a situation like this requires direct access. Your technician cut open also the firewall in my bedroom and the laundry room. Please do the thorough and professional cleaning and disinfection of these two rooms, not a part.
  

  4.****** wrote:
  We received initial notice of the incident on February 11, and immediately contacted all affected units the same day. The work was scheduled and began on February 12.
  While four days had passed since the incident, the conditions still met emergency criteria from an industry standpoint there was still moisture present, and structural materials were at risk of further damage or microbial growth. Emergency mitigation is not defined solely by the moment of water release, but by the presence of conditions that require immediate action to prevent secondary damage,which was still the case upon our arrival.
  As such, the charge applied is appropriate for the level of service provided and is in line with standard restoration industry practices.
  
  The fact is: ********* had not provided emergency service the same day he received the request. The conditions he described were exactly what the restoration industry for. This did not justify his charge at the emergency rate. Please refund the difference between emergency rate and regular rate.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Chi **** ****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 25/07/2025

  Hi ******,

  This will be my final response on this matter, as I believe were going in circles.

  As the project manager overseeing this file and a certified water damage technician, I can confirm that all emergency work was carried out correctly and in accordance with industry standards. Our team responded promptly to prevent further damage and ensure the area was thoroughly dried. Our technicians removed only as much drywall as necessary to allow proper drying of the structure and to prevent any risk of mould growth. All actions were taken with the long term health of the building in mind.

  It appears theres a fundamental misunderstanding of what the emergency phase of water damage mitigation entails. The owner has no formal training or experience in how structural drying should be performed, nor in determining how much material must be removed to achieve proper results. From our end, weve acted in the best interest of both the property and its occupants, and I stand by the work completed. 

  Although there was no fault in how the work was performed, I previously offered the owner $100 as a goodwill gesture. This offer was made out of courtesy, not as an admission of any failure on our part.