Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Barclay Restorations's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Barclay Restorations has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Barclay Restorations

  9344 192 St Surrey, BC V4N 3R8

  
• 

  Barclay Restorations

  100 1739 Boundary Rd Vancouver, BC V5M 3Y7

  

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:14/06/2023

  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.

  We have filed a claim with our home insurance company, The Cooperative on Dec 28, 2022 for home damages due to a leak in our ceiling. Our insurance company then hired Barclay Restorations to do an emergency inspection of the situation. Upon arriving on Jan 6, 2023, we were told that they cannot do any work (including the inspection that the insurance company requested) until we sign a standard document. They explained that it is to ensure we, the home owners, are liable for any deductibles and any portions that are not covered by our policy BUT to not worry as they will explain the work along the way. They have also made it clear that they will work directly with the insurance company and for us not to worry. After the initial inspection, they have quickly moved on to numerous other jobs (additional testing, drying and demolition) all WITHOUT our request or approval. As they deal with the insurance company directly and no request or work quote was presented to us, we assumed that they received the request from our insurance company. It wasnt until I received an update from my insurance agent that the damages are not covered under my policy that Barclay presented us with a $2646.82 bill. We have disputed the claim as we, the home owners did not confirm or approve any work to be done on our home. Our insurance company also confirmed that they have requested for Barclay to pause all work after the initial inspection so they understand whether or not our policy will provide required coverage. Barclay has since transferred our outstanding debt to a collectors agency *********. We have since been receiving daily *********** emails and phone calls for a job we did not ask for.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 14/06/2023

  We received notification from the ******************** that water damages were sustained to the Insureds property.  Initial reports of damage are provided to **************** ********* protocol is typically to advise that coverage is not confirmed until such time that a cause of loss can be noted and that any services for emergency work incurred would be that of the Owner until confirmation of coverage is provided.  Our initial call and contact with the Owner explained this as well prior to entering the owner into a queue due to a large weather event and influx of claims throughout the Lower Mainland. 
  
  The Owner was aware that they needed to sign a work authorization form allowing us to attend to emergency services.  This form outlines that should costs not be covered by their insurance that costs incurred would be that of the Owner to pay direct to us.  The Homeowner signed this work authorization after a lengthy explanation in front of our attending water technician who was also on site and who had also explained what work needed to be completed to stabilize the home.  The Owners coverage was denied on January 25th. We had discussed this with the Owner and he was unaware.  As a result we messaged the Adjuster on his behalf to clarify with him direct.  The Adjuster had noted they spoke with the Owner and the Owners daughter on the 27th which is the same day we spoke with the Insured.
  
  The Homeowner has refused to pay for the services rendered despite replying I am well aware of what I signed.  We did note in an email to the Owner that we lowered the costs of the invoice in good faith and to assist given that he was denied coverage and given that we had positive interactions on site together.  All efforts have been made to explain to the Owner the associated bill for our services, to which they were on site for each attendance and aware of our work each day there.  Efforts were made to avoid going to collections but the Owner refused any costs.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 14/06/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  1. The leakage was past almost a week when  they came. That means no emergency help or assistance needed.
  2. They never explained what jobs are for what and cost how much. I believed all the jobs done by them were asked by insurance company because I never asked them to do any thing (all the jobs done from them are not help us at all - only gave more damaging to my house). 
  3. I believe they are good guy so I did not ask  them to pay the cost to repair their damaging of my house (broken ceiling, broken baseboard), They knew it!
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 15/06/2023

  Thank you for the reply.  Building on this and to response to item number 3, is that Barclay Restorations practices in good faith and has certified and trained technicians in all forms of disaster restoration.  Part of this includes documenting damages sustained from losses to properties.  This is no exception in this case.  All damages were identified and documented as a result of the water escape at the residence of this Owner.  Unfortunately, we also found mold which indicated this may not have been the first occurrence from the same source.  It is only this time the Owners noticed it and reported it to their Insurance company.  We understand that every loss no matter how big or how small affects people particularly within their homes.  We are not in the business of creating chaos or damage but in mitigating additional damages, which is exactly the work we performed.  The flooring was not mentioned but unfortunately their floor was damaged as well, heaved from the water damages.
  
  To clarify timelines we do document when we receive assignments and we also provide notes to the insurance company, among our own site notes.  This loss was reported on December 28th.  Contact was attempted on the 28th as well as the 29th of December.  The Adjuster handling the file made a note for us to try again and follow up with the Owner on the 30th as they had been in contact advising that water is leaking on the ceiling.  On December 30th the Project Manager from Barclay was able to contact the Owner and had discussed that given the large weather event that they will be put into queue so that we may attend.  At this time the Manager discussed the work authorization prior to putting into queue, as during events such as this we only put those who confirm they require our assistance during an emergency into queue.  The Manager explained, as does the work authorization, that should the loss not be covered by the insurance that the Owner would need to cover all costs incurred on site.  At no time did the Owner request a quote, nor at the signing of the work authorization.  All intended works were explained and noted prior to scheduling as well as during the work that was being performed.  It is noted and documented that the Owner returned a call on January 6th and allowed access for the Project Manager and for a water damage technician to attend.  Upon attendance and after our initial inspection, the Owner signed the work authorization on their Kitchen peninsula bartop.
  
  As mentioned in a prior response coverage was denied at a later date. This denial was after the Owner had obtained a roofing report confirming the cause of loss.  This was advised to the Owner to obtain a roofers report for insurance purposes and for coverage confirmation.  The duration of our initial attendance and subsequent monitoring extended Over 19 days prior to the owner submitting this when coverage was denied on the 25th of January.
  
  As previously noted we have significantly reduced the invoice for the Owner. Equipment was drastically reduced and not charged for the time it was on site at just over 18 days of use. The truck fee was also waived for this Owner. 
  
  We feel that we have been extremely fair in this situation and reduced invoicing as per our word to help where we can.  We have carried costs on this file without charge or late fees for an lengthy period.  We have made many attempts to conclude this amicably and have tried to avoid going the root of collections.  We would like to conclude this by receiving the discounted and overdue amount owed.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 15/06/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  No explanation was discussed on what constituted as emergency work. The contract did not state what the work entitled either. Yes, I did sign the attached agreement as Barclay refused to do the initial inspection without it. It was explained to me that they will contact the insurance company directly and keep us updated as the insurance company is covering the inspection. No next steps were discussed nor approved from us, the home owners.
  

  The agreement is not a blank Cheque. It does not outline a SOW nor the rates they are charging. Barclay took it upon themselves to perform unauthorized work (by neither the home owners or insurance company) without a quote of any kind. I have no idea what they charge and how they charge as there has never been a discussion of any sort. I was only involved in the conversation once the insurance company confirmed that it is out of policy and we were slapped with the invoice. This is unacceptable.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 19/06/2023

  The rejection of our responses continues to keep this file going in circles. It has also resulted in Barclay having no choice but to bring the file to collections.  These are costs incurred.  We have removed some of the cost in order to lower the invoice for the Owner as per our Project Managers word.  This intention by us is being overlooked.
  
  There is no rejection or argument that we were requested by the Homeowner to attend to their property to assist in emergency services.  Our Project Manager inspected the damages and these costs are reflected in the invoice submitted. 
  
  There is no rejection to the fact that a work authorization was understood.  It was signed by the Homeowner upon our attendance and after a lengthy conversation with our water damage technician followed by one with the handling Project Manager.  This authorization outlines all that we have already responded to and discussed in regards to costs being that of the Owner should insurance not cover the loss.  Again, multiple times in these conversations it is recognized that they understood.  The signed document is undeniably acknowledged whereby the Owner agreed to pay for all services rendered.
  
  All work and intentions were explained.  Appointments were arranged through the Homeowner who provided access as required. 
  
  This will be our last correspondence as we feel that we have answered all of the questions multiple times and through this avenue as well.  Payment for the file is expected in full.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 20/06/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: we do not agree with what in their response - "There is no rejection or argument that we were requested by the Homeowner to attend to their property to assist in emergency services.  Our Project Manager inspected the damages and these costs are reflected in the invoice submitted. "

  Please just answer the following basic questions:

  1. Who asked them to come to my house? (never us, no even one time requested by us)

  2. What are the purposes to enter our house? (inspection of damage?)

  3. What costs are related to the purpose? Just example, in the billing, there is a cost "Hazardous Materials Testing", what is for? who requested? 

  Attached are some pictures to show the damages of my property done by their unnecessary work, which we will keep the right to ask them to pay for the repairing.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 22/06/2023

  1) Insurance and, as mentioned and by request, the Homeowner
  2) Inspection, Mitigation and ********* services as explained prior to dispatch and the signed authorization
  3) Costs incurred for the mitigation of water damages until such time that the Owner had asked us to remove the equipment.  These include hazardous materials testing prior to any removals, technician ******************* and materials.  As previously mentioned all was scheduled through the Owner and the process of each step explained up front and during scheduling.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 22/06/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  WHAT THEY SAID ARE NOT all TRUE.

  1. We never asked or requested them to come to my house from beginning to the end.

  2. Just a small water leakage, we just asked our insurance company if it is covered by insurance. Inspection is ok, but we do not understand why they did such as call "Mitigation and ******************* It is for what? Who asked? They never explained clearly to us.

  3. We never asked them to remove anything. Why remove? We just believed that we should follow the insurance company order to do the jobs. We did not stop them to do the whole thing because we believed they was requested by insurance company (we never ask them to do anything).

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 30/06/2023

  Please explain to me what the point of all this back and forth is accomplishing. The homeowner refused to pay for costs that were denied by their insurance company. The original invoice was sent on February 24/23 where we gave the homeowner a $480 reduction in the costs as their insurance claim was denied. After many failed attempts to reach the homeowner for payment, and the fact that we were being ignored we sent a collections letter to them. As it was also ignored we sent the outstanding receivable to our collections service. (see attachment). There has been no attempt or interest by the homeowner in settling this outstanding invoice. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/07/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  The reason is very simple -  your jobs were not informed and agreed by homeowner or insurance company, which are not related to the water leakage. If yes, please prove it.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************