ComplaintsforPaul Davis Restoration

• Initial Complaint

  07/22/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  In late March 2024 **** Davis was contacted by my home insurance to estimate restoration of my home caused by water damage. Over the course of the following 3-months the **** Davis estimator submitted and obtained insurance approval for all related repairs. In parallel the PD estimator was onsite several times to discuss changes and additions to the repairs/work (e.g. relocate sink, install window) and that we (homeowners) could source material (e.g. vanity) should PD material/cost be inferior to that of another; all of which was verbally confirmed and enthusiastically committed to (to my wife and me) within the approved estimate, with minimal additional cost ($2700.00). Move forward to early July, **** Davis wanted a signed work order to start but was paused as the work order outlined that no verbal commitments would be honored, only written. We reached back to PD asking for a redline or written commitment to everything that was promised as part of our lengthy review. PD mgmt. shared they would not alter their agreement and have since ignore all subsequent communications. We do currently hold a written communication from the estimator outlining the changes and costs, but appears mgmt. does not want to honor those.What we discovered through this exercise is that **** Davis Tulsa is clearly violating the *** act through unfair and deceptive trade practices ****************

  Business response

  08/01/2024

  Attached is **** Davis' response to ****************** complaint. Please reach out and let us know if there are any next steps necessary in resolving this issue.
  
  Thank you

  Customer response

  08/08/2024

  Within a week following the complaint filed here I received several emails (only) from **** Davis (attached). Within I explained again why I would like to make adjustments to the agreement. The payment penalty terms were resolved as payment was already in-hand with **** Davis from insurance, however **** Davis continuously pressed for a signed work authorization before all items verbally discussed and agreed to (scope and cost) were documented. I asked kindly to have those outlined in advance to ensure they were all captured and aligned to discussions had with their site estimator. *Work authorization outlined that NO VERBAL discussions would be honored, and **** Davis would have complete authority to complete all of the work. 

  While challenging I was hopeful to receive these updates and move forward via a signed work authorization. Moving forward to last week, **** Davis pivoted and severed their relationship with this work once they received your formal BBB complaint inquiry.

  It's evident that **** Davis works with potential clients by providing damage restoration estimates AND may offer scope changes with promises, but inflate related costs after a client signs a work authorization. This bait and switch tactic leads the consumer to: use **** Davis exclusively for the primary scope of work and potentially pay additional fees/costs related to additional/change work discussed during estimate, leaning on the work authorization to drive those additional fees/costs.

  I've attached the work authorization **** Davis asked me to sign before receiving any documented changes and their costs and a separate thread noting their desire to move forward after the redline challenges were addressed.

  No money has been exchanged. **** Davis has also (noted in their response) decided to not work with my wife and me. I'm not looking to force their commitment but remain steadfast that their consumer engagements may consistently involve bait and switch. 

  Customer response

  08/08/2024

  Within a week following the complaint filed here I received several emails (only) from **** Davis (attached). Within I explained again why I would like to make adjustments to the agreement. The payment penalty terms were resolved as payment was already in-hand with **** Davis from insurance, however **** Davis continuously pressed for a signed work authorization before all items verbally discussed and agreed to (scope and cost) were documented. I asked kindly to have those outlined in advance to ensure they were all captured and aligned to discussions had with their site estimator. *Work authorization outlined that NO VERBAL discussions would be honored, and **** Davis would have complete authority to complete all of the work. 
  While challenging I was hopeful to receive these updates and move forward via a signed work authorization. Moving forward to last week, **** Davis pivoted and severed their relationship with this work once they received your formal BBB complaint inquiry.
  It's evident that **** Davis works with potential clients by providing damage restoration estimates AND may offer scope changes with promises but inflate related costs after a client signs a work authorization. This bait and switch tactic leads the consumer to use **** Davis exclusively for the primary scope of work and potentially pay additional fees/costs related to additional/change work discussed during estimate, leaning on the work authorization to drive those additional fees/costs.
  I've attached the work authorization **** Davis asked me to sign before receiving any documented changes and their costs and a separate thread noting their desire to move forward after the redline challenges were addressed.
  No money has been exchanged. **** Davis has also (noted in their response) decided to not work with my wife and me. I'm not looking to force their commitment but remain steadfast that their consumer engagements may consistently involve bait and switch. 

*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. ↩