ComplaintsforPureSpace

• Initial Complaint

  09/28/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  In May 2023 I contracted with PureSpace to remediate my basement in accordance with an inspection report prepared by KesterClear Inspection of *******. The protocol stated that the work would "be isolated with the use of containment barriers. Negative air should be established with the use of HEPA filter negative air machines. All air should be vented to the outdoors through the closest window/door possible". The area was contained but the air was not vented outside. Per the owner, *********************, the air was vented to the room next to the one in question. I am unable to verify where the air was vented as the space was contained and I was not able to ******* , only that it was not vented to the outside, as per industry standard. I asked *********************** of ****** Clear to speak to **************** on my behalf. This is his response, "I spoke with ****. The exhaust was to the adjacent room as you described, and this was acknowledged as a mistake by the field team. He informed me that the room that was exhausted into was then cleaned and did pass PRV testing. I'll be very surprised to hear that they are stating anything to the contrary that it was a mistake that would not be done in the future. The standard for ****, the overall industry, and PureSpace is to exhaust to the exterior of the house. If you decide to contract with them in the future, I have a high level of confidence that this will be done without question."The issue now is that the remediation of the basement did not pass and will need further work to do so.

  

  Business response

  10/20/2023

  ****************** is correct in that we did vent our ***** (which is beyond HEPA rated quality) into the adjacent room.  We have spoken with our leads and can assure anyone that this will not happen again.  Additionally, we have appropriately responded this this situation and ensured that it did not harm her home or anyone in it in any way, as evidenced by the *** testing results.  As such, Ms. ******** accusations go awry in several significant ways.  
   
  She states that the basement is not passing Post Remediation Verification (***), which is a half-truth.  Her basement is divided into two sections and the area that is not passing is not the area where the air was vented into (the area that she is so concerned with).  That area passed without problem.  In fact, because of the ***** rating of the filtration device, it is impossible for that air to cause a failure, given that it filters down to .03 microns, and *** only tests mold, which are at least 2 microns and larger.  The area in that basement that is not passing *** is the area that still has mold that the client refuses to have addressed. We raised significant concern with the work she approved as compared to our recommendations at the beginning of the project.  Unfortunately,  they were items she chose not to approve and are directly responsible for this failed test.  After speaking with the testing company that she referenced in her complaint, their assessment was clear: you cannot pass *** when you have active mold growth in an area and it needs to be remediated exactly in line with our recommendations..  They supported our remediation plan as THE pathway to success.  Now all we need is for the client to approve the work.  With our track record of success, the client would be assured of success if she made that choice.
   
  Regards,
  ********************* President 
  PureSpace
  ************
  *************
  *************************. STE 1
  ********, ** 97218 
   
  

  
  

  Customer response

  10/23/2023

  In response to PureSpace - regarding their claim the area in the basement that failed post remediation testing (PRV) "that still has mold that the client refuses to have addressed" - the areas in the basement that require more attention are not areas that were specified in the original protocol prepared by ****** Clear.  I have reviewed all of my correspondence with PureSpace regarding work specified in the contract and find nothing suggesting this additional work, nor do I find any issues specified where "the client refuses to have addressed".  PureSpace also states, "we raised significant concern with the work she approved as compared to our recommendations at the beginning of the project. Unfortunately, they were items she chose not to approve and are directly responsible for this failed test."  I find nothing in the work plan/contract that were not completed during the remediation.  I am puzzled by this claim, but understand it really has no bearing on my complaint.  I do accept that it is only the West/front part of the basement that failed and needs more work.  My desired settlement was to finish the job.  I still need that to happen.  On the advice of counsel, I ask only that PureSpace make a good faith billing adjustment to right their breaking of our signed contract for this job.

  

  Business response

  10/24/2023

  ****************** has referenced a number of things in this complaint.  The original complaint was that we improperly vented from one room to another.  PureSpace addressed this in numerous ways as evidenced by the results of the **** which passed in space.  There is no reason for any refund due to this as we appropriately fixed any potential issue.  She now is admitting this to be the case, and is now saying that she only wanted PureSpace to "finish" the work.  She then goes on to imply that she has retained an attorney and that attorney has concluded that we have breached our agreement.  There are a couple of things wrong with this.  First, the **** report that she references is non-destructive.  If you called the owner of ****, he would tell you that his assessments and reports are not only subject to change when actual demo begins, but that he would actually EXPECT the scope to change on most projects due to additional information being discovered throughout the project.  This project is no different.  Additional mold was found by our team during the project.  As a quality and ethical remediation company, our policy is to alert the client to the discoveries, and also advise on additional costs that might arise as a result.  Virtually all of our clients appreciate this approach, but unfortunately, ****************** apparently does not.  We would not be doing our job if we did not tell the client that something new had been discovered.  The second problem is that our company performs our billing on a "Time and Materials Cost" basis.  This means that we do not provide quotes for work, but do, as a courtesy, provide ESTIMATES, which amounts to our best educated guess, based on all available information (prior to the project commencing and well before any demolition takes place) as to what the project will cost.  In this instance, we estimated $14,300 and the invoices totaled approximately $17,000.  This was due to multiple areas being much worse than the **** report indicated, as well as some areas discovered that could not be known to **** as the walls were in the way at the time that **** performed the assessment.  When you compare what we charged for the work, to the time cards of PureSpace employees as well as the material costs incurred in order to do the work, the correct amount was invoiced.  Because we ONLY invoice for the work performed, there is no need to adjust the invoice.  I do not want to imply that we have spoken with our attorney because we actually have spoken to her. We actually have shown all of the correspondence in addition to our agreement with ****************** and all of the records we have indicating costs incurred and our attorney has concluded that we have no liability due to breach or anything else she can think of.  ****************** has been advised on EXACTLY what needs to happen in order to achieve passing PRV results and she simply has refused to approve the work.  Without approval, we cannot perform the work, though at this point, regardless of approval, we simply cannot provide anything further to ******************.

  Customer response

  10/26/2023

   
  Complaint: 20669546
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I wish to withdraw my complaint.  I am disappointed at the response from the company as it contains many statements that have no bearing on my complaint.  In the last two days I have learned from four former PureSpace customers who also had bad experiences with both their work and the company treatment of the homeowner.  I plan to take a different direction to find relief.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *********************************

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩