ComplaintsforKoala Insulation of Pittsburgh

• Initial Complaint

  03/02/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Koala Insulation of Pittsburgh was contracted to install blow in insulation in my home. The installers immediately had trouble drilling through the walls in the first room. After 30min of trial and error it was discovered the walls were lined with tongue and groove planks behind the drywall. My home is an older home and this was how the house was built in the early 1900's. The installers contacted Koalas owner, Tina P******** for suggestions and next steps. After their call was over I was informed Koala would not be able to install the insulation due to the unique construction of my home. After asking the installers to drill a few test holes in other areas it was determined the entire home was wrapped in wood planks. At the recommendation of Koala insulation of Pittsburg and the trained and certified installer, I was informed the installation would not be possible. Based on Koalas professional advice a decision was made to stop any further attempts at installation. The installers were at my home for 2 hours in total at the time the decision was made to cease work. Koala's terms state "if a customer cancels within 24 hours or when a crew is dispatched to the job site, the customer will be assessed a day fee of $750 for incurred expenses". I agreed to pay the fee per the contract terms. However, the installers later informed me the owner Tina P******** was invoicing me in the amount of $2,350. The installers were able to fill 2 cavities that measured 16"W x 9'H. Total material used was less than 3 bags of insulation. Tina P******** told her installers because of the amount of insulation they purchased they now had to store this and that was part of the fee. However, during my call with Tina P******** she denied ever saying this. Tina P******** was very dismissive and defiant during our call and even hung up on me at the end.

  Customer response

  04/11/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********* and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

   

  The issue has been resolved only after Koala Insulation of Pittsburgh threatened me with legal action and a falsified letter from their lawyer. Koala Insulation of Pittsburgh has unethical business practices and a warning needs to be made to the general public prior to engaging in business with Koala Insulation of Pittsburgh.
  
  Regards,
  
  ***** ******

  Business response

  04/12/2023

  After initial back and forth between the Company's management and *** ******* I was in contact with *** ****** regarding his account and the work that was completed.  I initially sent *** ****** the attached letter outlining the Company's position.  After receiving *** ******'s response, and further discussion, we agreed that he would pay to the Company a total of $750.00 to close out the account, and both parties would consider the matter resolved.  *** ****** made the $750 payment upon presentation and there has been no further issue with this customer.  The issue has been satisfactorily resolved and settled.

   

  Keenan D. H****** Esquire (He/Him/His)
  Founder & CEO

• Initial Complaint

  02/23/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We worked with Mark to schedule insulation for our entire house. We explained that we would need the job completed on specific days-as we were working on a very tight schedule between other work being finished and drywall coming in after insulation. Mark assured us that the team could get our job finished on the agreed upon dates, and he understood drywall was coming in 2 days later. He assured me when I booked the job and again the day before they started that he had booked 2 days for our job and that the team would be able to come back the 2nd day if they didnt finish on the first day. We also explained to him and the owner that is important (due to code and a vapor barrier of thermoply on our walls and our house not being able to dry to the outside, that batt or faced insulation was used in certain spots). This was guidance provided to use by our inspectors and architect. The owner had to come back on day 2 to finish the work. She told me that, unlike what Mark assured us, the team of workers was scheduled for another job on day 2. She did not have a team to finish our job, nor did she have enough insulation. I was asked to prioritize what sections of exterior walls I wanted to have batts insulation. We were told by inspectors, any spot larger than a fist should have faced insulation. I called her back after she left because they did not cover about 1/3 of our garage ceiling in batts insulation, several large spots on various walls around the house and fully covered an outlet. She initially told me she would return but she never did. We texted her all day asking to help, sending pictures, informing her that drywall was scheduled the next day. My husband had to buy insulation and spent hours working late into the night to finish for drywall the next morning. Our inspection was being done to have a record for resale. We had to cancel the final inspection because drywall started the next day. Without a final report, the owner has refused to reimburse.

  Business response

  03/02/2022

  On February 4th, 2022, our Sales & Marketing Specialist confirmed via email with the customer that the job in question was scheduled for Tuesday, February 15th & that our team would "arrive between 8:00 am & 8:30am that morning and stay through the afternoon". A second day was not discussed in the email confirmation for scheduling. 
  AL 
  On the morning of February 15th, three members of our company (including the owner) arrived for install. One of the homeowners (the husband) was home for the entirety of our work that day. We were advised at the beginning of the job that the homeowners were waiting for the plumbers to show up to inspect some pipes. We were told to avoid Insulating a few specific areas until the plumbers showed up, and that if we were finished before the plumbers arrived to just leave behind the insulation for the homeowner to self-install. This approach is consistent with our normal operations, as we were unable to insulate the referenced areas at the explicit request of the homeowners. 
  
  Upon completion of our job, the husband said he had no further questions or concerns. He asked if he could mail a check for payment, as he did not have his checkbook on him at that moment. To go above and beyond for the customer, the owner offered to come back to pick up the check and would be willing to install the insulation around the plumbing that was excluded at the request of the homeowner. 
  On the evening of February 15th, our Sales & Marketing Specialist followed up with the Wife of the home to confirm the install went well and that the owner would be back for payment and to install the remaining insulation. That same evening, the homeowner replied to our email thanking us repeatedly. 
  TWP LE 
  The Koala owner went back to the home the morning of February 16th to install the insulation around the plumbing. This time, both homeowners (husband & wife) were present. The wife inquired about a few other spots that did not have "facing on the insulation, such as small gaps that are "stuffed" with insulation as opposed to laying flat due to size of the studs. As much as could be covered with paper, we did so. Throughout the day on the 16th, the homeowners and the Koala owner touched base and interreacted with our owner on multiple occasions. The wife and Koala owner did multiple walk-throughs together to ensure everything was perfect, knowing the drywall was set to be delivered that evening and started within the days following, with an insulation inspection to be done the following morning. 
  
  By 5pm February 16th our company had done walk-throughs with both homeowners, came back a second time as a courtesy (free of charge) and received payment after approval of the job. Koala owner even asked the wife if she would like to do one additional, final walk-through. The wife advised she did not wish to do so, and that everything looked great, and she would be reaching out to us for another project. 
  The next day, February 17th, the customer began reaching out again saying that the job was not done correctly and that they did not pass their inspection. They stated they needed someone to come out immediately to fix the problems. For liability purposes, we stated that we would need a copy of the inspection report to see what exactly needed fixed so we would know how to proceed. We were originally told by both homeowners they did not yet have a report, and then later we were told there was no report as it was not an official inspection. 

  
  The homeowner suggested we call the inspectors for the information, but after we advised they most likely would not release the information to us as we are not the homeowners. It was suggested we do a joint conference call with the owners, the homeowners, and the inspectors. We agreed to do this, and provided available times for such a call. The customer never confirmed a time for this joint call. 
  With no call scheduled, the homeowners continued to request a crew be dispatched to their home despite no official report being provided. The homeowners then started requesting a refund. We then again stated to address any type of refund, we would still need to see an official report or speak directly with the inspectors to confirm any deficiency. 
  On Monday, February 21st, the wife informed Koala owner that she had the information from the inspectors and wanted to discuss itKoala owner stated that the report should be emailed to her or that the joint conference call with all parties and inspector should be set up. The wife stated she would not schedule a call and only wanted to talk to the owner directly about the information. The owner again stated that for any type of action or refund we would need to information directly from the source and provided additional times we were available for a call that day. The homeowners never responded after that. 
  Our company values our customers and their satisfaction. However, if there was a failed inspection, we must be provided with the necessary information from the expert in question for us to act. At this point, we are still willing to have the conversation with the inspectors to review a failed report to determine if a refund is due. 
  

   

  Thank you, 
  Tina P******** *******) Owner, Koala Insulation of Pittsburgh 

  Customer response

  03/03/2022

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********* and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

  The inspection is moot.  The business is using the inspection as a distraction from the fact that they failed to complete the work/the issue at hand. As explained to the business and in our complaint, we had to cancel our final inspection because my husband had to buy insulation and complete the insulation job late into the evening the night before drywall started.  The issue is as follows:  The insulation company was under contract and hired to install paper facing backed insulation. They failed to do this, especially in 1/3 of the garage ceiling (see pictures provided).  They did not complete the work they were under contract to do and they owe us a reimbursement.  My husband had to buy faced insulation to complete the garage ceiling.  

  
  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. ↩