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:09/04/2025

  Type:Billing 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.

  Our family urgently sought support for a loved one experiencing severe mental health and addiction. We contacted Valiant Recovery, who responded quickly and requested a $3,000 deposit within 48 hours, followed by a $24,000 balance for a two-month stay, totaling $27,000. They emphasized that full payment was required before addressing detailed questions about healthcare staff, refund policy, or accommodations.Once payment was made, communication slowed, and our follow-up questions were met with vague, evasive responses. We were never clearly told if licensed medical professionals were onsite. Despite repeated asks, refund policy details were also withheld until after the stay ended.Our family member was discharged less than two weeks into the program. During the stay, she exhibited distressing behavior tied to withdrawal and ******************************* (BPD), but no serious damages occurred. Valiant submitted screenshots of text messages (reflective of her condition) and cited a single broken $20$40 decorative sign as damages.They eventually offered a partial refund of $11,494, far below what we expected given she stayed under 14 days. When we questioned the amount, we were offered a single 30-minute Zoom meeting with the same staff person we had expressed concerns about. There is no escalation path no HR, no director, no neutral party just this one staff member.The representative was dismissive and threatened to end the call when pressed with factual questions. This entire experience felt exploitative, culturally insensitive, and misleading. We were promised high-level, medically informed care. What we received was substandard, with minimal oversight and poor accountability. We are requesting fair compensation for unused services and appropriate follow-up.

  Business Response

  Date: 28/04/2025

  To whom it may concern,
  This situation demands immediate attention due to its unfortunate nature. The complainant's letter contains inaccuracies. Staff credentials were provided upon request before full payment was made, and the family was fully informed that our facility does not have a psychiatrist or medical doctor on site. Our refund policy, clearly stated on the invoice, specifies that refunds are not issued. Clients who choose to leave the facility may return later to complete their remaining time.
  In this case, however, a refund was granted as the client stayed for only 9 days out of the recommended 60-day program. During her stay, she frequently requested hospital visits, citing *****************. Later, she admitted that these requests were motivated by her desire to leave treatment. Before the client entered our facility, her mother was asked to obtain a specific prescription essential for the client's mental health diagnosis. Unfortunately, this was not done, leading to a deterioration in the client's mental health, explosive behavior, and property damage within the facility.
  The family was shown photographic evidence of the damages prior to a Zoom meeting. During the meeting, staff offered to show the pictures again, but the family declined. Since March 15, 2025, the former client has been sending threatening emails to a staff member, despite repeated requests to stop. The staff member has reported this ongoing harassment to the police. It appears the client managed to obtain the staff member's work email address.
  The Zoom meeting to discuss the refund, which is not a typical practice for us, was marked by the family's combative and disruptive behavior. Their constant interruptions made it difficult for staff to address questions effectively. The meeting exceeded its scheduled time due to the family's inability to maintain a constructive dialogue.
  Additionally, the family accused our facility of racial insensitivity. However, we operate on a non-judgmental basis and uphold a strict policy of non-discrimination. The total cost of the clients program was $25,990, of which $18,000 was refunded. The $3,000 deposit, as stated in our policy, is non-refundable. The refund also accounted for the 9 days spent at the facility and the damages caused during the clients stay. 

  We believe that compensation has been more than fair.

  It is unfortunate when situations need to be dealt with this way. We wish the family nothing but the best.

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 15/05/2025

   
  Complaint: 23175304
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I am requesting that this complaint be reopened because the businesss reply includes false statements, inappropriate disclosures, racially insensitive language, and mischaracterizations of both the client and our family. It does not address the root issues of our complaint and instead attempts to redirect blame in a way that is harmful and unprofessional.
  
  ?
  
  1. Inaccurate and misleading statements about the Zoom meeting
  
  The business falsely claims that we declined to view photographic evidence of property damage during the Zoom meeting. In reality, those images had already been sent to us via email before the meeting there was no need to revisit them. Additionally, their description of the call as combative and disruptive is not only untrue, but coded and discriminatory. This language perpetuates racial stereotypes and frames legitimate questions about policy and care as aggression.
  
  Our family is composed of individuals with professional backgrounds in mental health, social services, and business. We approached the conversation with clarity, professionalism, and concern not hostility. Whenever we asked for clarification on their policies or formal documentation, we were either dismissed or accused of raising our voices. Several people on the call can confirm that we were not disruptive in any way.
  
  ?
  
  2. Discrimination and lack of cultural sensitivity
  
  The businesss claim that they operate on a non-judgmental basis and uphold a strict policy of non-discrimination is not supported by our experience. Upholding a non-discrimination policy is not the same as demonstrating racial sensitivity, cultural competence, or EDI awareness in their service model.
  
  At no point did the facility acknowledge the need for, or presence of, diverse staff or culturally responsive care. When asked directly about diversity or EDI training, staff were either evasive or dismissive. This lack of cultural awareness contributed significantly to the poor communication, lack of trust, and overall harm experienced by our family.
  
  ?
  
  3. Inappropriate references to clients  mental health
  
  Most disturbingly, the business used their BBB response to disclose personal information about the said clients including mental health-related details that are private, stigmatizing, and completely unrelated to the complaint.
  
  The mention of threatening emails, police involvement, and continued communication from said client  has nothing to do with the original BBB complaint and appears to be an attempt to discredit or retaliate against us for speaking out. Using said clients mental health as a scapegoat or as a way to shame our family for raising valid concerns is not only unethical it is cruel and deeply inappropriate. This weaponization of personal mental health information in a public forum is alarming and reinforces our concern that this business is not equipped to serve clients with complex mental health needs.
  
  ?
  
  4. Misrepresentation of services and harm to others
  
  While we did receive a partial refund which we pretty much had to beg to gets I have all the messages. This does not resolve the deeper issue: the business markets itself as a facility capable of handling serious mental health and addictions concerns, yet in practice, they are not equipped or trained to provide the appropriate support.
  
  Families seeking intensive rehab or mental health treatment deserve full transparency, proper clinical staffing, and safe, culturally competent environments. This facility does not offer that. In fact, the experience further traumatized not only said client, but also our family a situation that could have been avoided with honest communication and ethical care practices.
  
  ?
  
  Final Note
  
  This response from the business is not a resolution it is a deflection. It is inappropriate, racially coded, and harmful. Their continued contact with our family, including tying Makaylas behavior to this BBB complaint, feels like harassment and retaliation.
  
  For these reasons, I respectfully ask that this BBB complaint remain open and continue to be reviewed. We are not seeking revenge we are seeking accountability, and to ensure that no other family has to endure what we went through.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

  Business Response

  Date: 20/05/2025

  
  To Whom It May Concern Regarding Complaint ID ********,
  I wish to reaffirm the points previously stated regarding this matter.
  Valiant Recovery Centers are staffed by highly educated professionals who specialize not only in addiction and complex mental health symptoms but in every aspect of a client's circle of care. Unfortunately, when individuals are not forthcoming about their mental health before entry, it may give the false impression that our staff are either unqualified or ineffective in handling certain situations. That is simply not the case. Each year, hundreds of individuals seek treatment with us, and we currently maintain an 85% success rate among those who stay for at least 60 days and actively work toward transforming their lives.
  It is disappointing that this particular family has chosen to accuse our well-trained staff of cultural insensitivity. Our center welcomes individuals from all walks of life, and we strive to keep an open mind and heart at all times. While most clients engage positively in their recovery, some cases present significant challengessuch as this particular individual. Despite multiple attempts by staff to provide grounding techniques, these efforts were unsuccessful due to the client's repeated statements that she did not want to remain in the facility. Pushback is most common among those who are unwilling to participate in the program, and in this case, the client actively sought to leave against medical advice (AMA).
  A Zoom meeting was conducted regarding this matter, and while the meeting was recorded and transcribed, due to the frequent mention of names, this transcript cannot be used as evidence in this situation. While the client's family may have experience in social services, they continue to contest a situation that was handled appropriately and to the best of our ability.
  Our previous response to the familys complaints was not an act of deflection, as implied by their rejection of our response. This does not appear to be about resolving concerns but rather about demanding an apology for events that did not occur. We remain accountable for our actions in situations where accountability is warranted, but ultimately, our priority is ensuring that clients receive the treatment they truly need.
  While we strongly believe that our facility is well-suited for any client willing to commit to recovery, in this case, we referred this individual to alternative treatment locations, as documented in our Zoom meeting notes. The complainants perception of that meeting is highly inaccurate, and given this, no meaningful resolution was possible.
  Our staff represents a diverse range of cultural backgrounds, and we take great pride in fostering an inclusive, aware, and equitable environment. This includes celebrating differences, addressing barriers, and ensuring that all individuals feel a sense of belonging. However, in this instance, the client had no interest in participating, leaving our staff with no viable options.
  The family was reimbursed for the majority of their payment, excluding the non-refundable $3,000 deposit, as well as the costs for the nine days the client attended and the damages incurred during her stay.
  We remain committed to our mission and will continue to advocate for those who genuinely seek change, helping them build lives they can be proud of. Our work is deeply meaningful, and we celebrate the success of every individual who completes our program with newfound strength and transformation.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 20/05/2025

   
  Complaint: 23175304
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 20/05/2025

  I am rejecting this response because it continues to misrepresent key facts and fails to acknowledge the core issues at hand. While I acknowledge that the clients treatment was ultimately unsuccessful, my complaint is not about the outcome of the treatmentit is about how we, as the clients family and financial payers, were treated by this business throughout the process.
  The providers response is filled with factual inaccuracies and dismisses legitimate concerns we raised regarding their lack of cultural sensitivity and awareness. Referring to us as aggressive and framing the client as unwilling reinforces harmful stereotypes and stigmas that disproportionately affect racialized individuals. These statements reflect a serious lack of understanding of trauma-informed care and perpetuate bias, rather than demonstrating any effort to create an inclusive or safe space.
  Additionally, the statement that the Zoom meeting was transcribed without our knowledge or consent raises serious concerns about transparency and confidentiality. If a transcript exists and is being used to discredit our account, it should be made available to us. We were never informed that the meeting was being transcribed.
  Furthermore, the reimbursement process only began after we repeatedly pushed for it. There is documented proof in the form of emails and messages I previously sent showing that the refund was not actively offered to usit was something we had to fight for. And even when it was finally brought up, the amount offered was minimal, with no clear explanation as to how that number was determined. It was only after we explicitly asked them to justify the amount and break down the so-called damages that they increased the reimbursement amount.
  We are not seeking additional compensation, including the non-refundable deposit. However, we feel its critical to proceed with this complaint so that other families are informed. In our experience, this business does not offer trauma-informed, culturally competent care through a proper medical lens. They do not have medical professionals on-sitethere are no doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, or registered medical staff available. If a client requires medical care, including prescriptions or emergency support, they are forced to leave the facility and seek help elsewhere. That is a major concern for anyone expecting comprehensive mental health and addiction support. If your facility cannot support those needs, then what are you truly offering?
  Mental health and addiction care require qualified, compassionate, and medically informed professionals. This business is operating more like a wellness retreat than a legitimate mental health treatment center. That distinction matters greatly for families in crisis seeking real support.