Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  06/03/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Client engaged the Contractor to complete asbestos abatement. The Contractor estimated $******, and the Client approved. Work would begin on February ** & finish by February **. The Contractor was responsible for managing all Work execution, scheduling the Work, and ensuring the Property and the Client's possessions inside were properly protected. The Contractor assured the Client that the house would be left in clean living condition. On February **, the Contractor contacted the client and strongly recommended a change in scope and completely removing the ceiling instead of scraping it as quoted. The client confirmed the schedule as she was to move in Feb **. The contractor assured the Client that they would easily find a drywaller in Feb it would add two days *** to the schedule (Feb **) they will leave the house ready for paint and in clean living conditions. Client agreed.Dispute: The Homeowner wants a reduction of the Invoice **** to match the additional expense caused by Contractor. Out-of-Scope and Hazardous Demolition Failure to Secure the Property: left a window open at the Property overnight in Feb.Missing material: Demolition debris was left behind but interior closet rods, and all metal supports are missing.Damage Caused by Subcontractors: The subcontractors hired by the Contractor caused significant damage to floors at the Property through their work methods.The Contractor did not appropriately manage or oversee the subcontractors as agreed,Project Delay and Associated Expenses: three days past the timelines, *********************** expenses. Unsatisfactory Property Return Contractor returned the Property with urine on toilet seat Water Damage from Negligence The Contractor's employee failed to report this spill, preventing timely response measures.Possible damage to the subfloor of the Property is yet to be assessed. Demand:The Client proposes a payment of $*****.Contractor demands ********* by March ** or will put a lean on my house

  

  Business response

  06/03/2024

  We wish to address the concerns that Client have raised regarding the recently completed asbestos abatement project at her property. Firstly, it is important to clarify that we did not employ any subcontractors for drywalling purposes. After recommending drywallers matching Clients budget upon her request, Client made unsuccessful attempts to ********* such professionals. The asbestos abatement assigned to us began on February ** and was successfully completed by February **, according to the terms set in our agreement this was a 4 day project. On February 20, the certified hygienist conducted a final air clearance test which we passed, indicating that the site was left devoid of any asbestos debris. All the expenses Client is presently claiming occurred post the completion of our contracted asbestos abatement work. It is beyond our capacity and mandate to supervise drywallers or other professionals who are not under our employment. As for the unexpected water damage, we did assure the Client that our liability insurance contractor is closely working with the neighbours units' insurance to expedite the restoration process. We have been in communication with the condo management team who have, in turn, reached out to Client to confirm that we, Calgary Asbestos Abatement, are taking full responsibility for the damage. In the light of Client's decision to reject our offer of a discount amounting to $***** plus GST from the total price, Client proposed to settle the invoice at $****. We find this proposition unworkable, given the nature and extent of the work we completed. As of today, March * 2024, Calgary Asbestos Abatement did not receive any payment from the Client. The updated invoice amounts to $****** plus GST, and it remains unchanged despite the client's insistence on modifying our terms and conditions. We take our commitment to service seriously and strive to resolve this professionally and justly.

  Customer response

  07/03/2024

   
  Complaint: ********
  I am rejecting this response because: Contractor is misrepresenting facts.
  On Feb. **, 2024, The Contractor recommended a change to the work scope requested by the Client, from Scraping to full removal of the ceiling, which was quicker and less labour-intensive for them. The client only accepted because of the assurance of the Contractor that it would be easy to find drywallers in February; he would call his regular contacts and handle everything.

  The Client relied FULLY on the Contractor to find and manage the drywall, which is far beyond her ability. Only after the drywallers trashed the house and confirmed they would need five days + (rendering Client homeless) did the Contractor mention to the client he didnt realize it would be five days and tried to distance himself from the work.
  Contractors demoed parts of the home that were out of scope during the four days they had care and control of the property.  This error added cost, delays and stress to the Client.
  
  In the light of Client's decision to reject our offer of a discount amounting to $***** plus GST from the total price this statement is a lie. 
  
  The **% discount was offered before work execution because of seasonality ($***). Another $*** of it covers the furnace repairs required due to the contractor's gross negligence. The only discount offered is $***, whereas the client suffered nearly $**** in additional expenses and still counting.

  Their invoice is ****** from invoicing; I am still within my contract Terms and conditions. I would argue the only party in violation of the original agreement is Calgary Asbestos Abatement which is well documented in the Clients initial complaint.

  I am prepared to raise my offer $********. If the contractor remains disagreeable, I will be happy to have a third party make the decision based on the facts and pictures.
  Sincerely,
  
  **********************************
  

  

  Business response

  14/03/2024

  Firstly, I would like to address your claim of misrepresentation of facts. In our commitment to transparency, honesty and openness, we have never deviated from these principles in all our dealings with clients. 
  
  When we recommended a change from scraping to a full removal of the ceiling, the primary motivation was a sincere belief in the suitability of this approach. It was not lesser labour-intensive for us, it was demonstrably more beneficial for the overall project. In fact, we had remove and dispose by double bagging over *** asbestos bags and dispose from ******* at the landfill in Calgary, which means more weight more material more expensive. All of this with no extra expense for you, also youve added more work for closets removal, again no charge. Remember all of these issues didnt happen yet at the time, all of this as a goodwill from us. 
  
  You were informed about this and other related aspects over the phone. As I recall, you concurred to this idea despite the financial strains it would cause and the tasks it would add to the project. I understand this was a difficult decision. However, it was made in anticipation of a more overall effective result.
  
  Regarding your concern about the discount, I would like to clarify that we did offer you a **% discount amounting to $*** prior to start plus an additional $*** after we are done. This totals to $****, as stated in the revised estimate #**** sent to you via email on March ***. The furnace technician's fare was not part of the discount but an expense we will cover.
  
  We now offer last discount of another $***, which takes the price from $****** to $***** plus GST. Note: The invoice is due for payment as of March **. 

  If you still feel a third-party evaluation is necessary, we respect your decision and are ready to cooperate fully in that regard.
  
  Best Regards,

*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. ↩