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:05/14/2025

  Type:Service or Repair 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.

  On March 18, 2025 the company performed a mold remediation service on an area in my basement to remove allergenic mold that was present in the rafters of my unfinished basement area. They did a less than complete/satisfactory job and as a result not only failed post remediation testing, but put the rest of my house at risk of contamination by leaving residual dust/mold/moisture and not using standard containment/scrubbing techniques. The HEPA vacuuming was not thorough. They did not vacuum the tops of the HVAC duct work nor the ends of the ceiling rafters; they left dust and cobwebs on windows, floor framing, etc. The smell in the room afterwards was atrocious - had never smelled musty previously and was inhabitable after. They were in and out in a matter of a few hours to my surprise (asked me to post a positive review - always beware of service providers asking for a review as they’re leaving - it means they have to solicit them for a reason!) and didn’t mention post remediation testing. They promised that my support beams would look like new wood - they looked the same, if not worse. I questioned them then, but they assured me it was just stains not mold. The post testing came back WORSE than previous testing. Each of the three additional remediation specialists I had to have come out to rebid the job said it was a despicable effort that may have made my mold situation far worse than before. They took pictures and videos of the problems, mostly hidden - so this is a pure example of “they’ll never know the difference” shortcuts. I incurred significant expenses having additional testing and expanded scope re-remediation done. After speaking with the owner, he would take no responsibility for the hacked job despite the evidence in the testing report and continued to defend himself. They are now threatening to put a lien on my property and sue me for disputing the charge with my credit card company. The credit card company found in my favor.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 05/14/2025

  We first encountered *** ******* on March 11, 2024 for an inspection of the kitchen for suspect mold and complaint about an odor.  On Friday April 5th, 2024 we dropped off a hydroxyl machine for three days for the odor problem, which we only billed her for two days.  Our third encounter was on March 18, 2025 where she hired us to do a cleaning of the mechanical/storage/laundry area which included removal of fiberglass insulation and disposal, HEPA vacuuming and application of an anti-microbial. (please see attached report).  On March 21, 2025 *** ******* called and stated she not satisfied with the work that was performed and there was humidity, no containment, and then said she had testing done and claimed it did not pass.  We asked for a copy of the testing, which she sent and that also indicated that there was previous testing in May 2024, none of the prior testing was ever mentioned, nor was the desire for post cleaning testing.  We offered to come back and re-clean at no charge which she refused to give us the opportunity to correct the perceived wrong.  She was supposed to call us back with her decision on the re-clean and never did.  She did do a credit card charge back on April 2, 2025.  On May 5, 2025 when I sent her an email regarding the chargeback:

  From: Holly A ***** *** <********************************>
  Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 9:00 AM
  To: ********* ******* <********************>
  Subject: Credit Card Chargeback
  
  Good Morning *** *******:
  
  I have received correspondence from my credit card company that you have disputed a charge of $1,370.93 for cleaning services performed at your home in **** *****.  Please contact me to discuss this matter so I can understand what is happening.
  
  Thank you,
  
  Holly A. ***** ***
  Owner Pioneer Environmental
  * ******** *****
  **** **
  ********* ** *****
  ************

  On May 5, 2025 this was her response:

  From: ********* ******* <********************>
  Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 3:33 PM
  To: Holly A ***** *** <********************************>
  Subject: RE: Credit Card Chargeback
  
  Dear Ms. B****
  As communicated via telephone to Sean M******* on Friday, March 21, 2025, the work that was performed in my home basement on March 18, 2025, was not completed to acceptable standards. Standard protocols (negative air pressure during and industrial dehumidification and air scrubbers post-remediation) were not followed. Further, the HEPA vacuuming was not nearly thorough (see pictures taken from further inspection immediately after the service; the top of the HVAC duct work was also not even vacuumed (pictures documented as well, but not in my custody at the moment) and was layered in dust which exacerbated the mold spores left behind by the negligent cleaning/no negative air/residual dampness). The negligence on your company’s part resulted in a residual environment which not only tested as “unacceptable” and “high” mold in post-remediation testing, but upon further inspection may have contaminated my entire basement, including the finished portion. Your negligence forced me to spend significant monies (well in excess of what I paid to you) to consult with several other testing and remediation companies to validate the negligence and potential further contamination and it is all photographed, tested and documented. Sean took no accountability for this negligence in our telephone conversation of March 18, 2025. At the conclusion of the telephone conversation, he was to call me back the following Monday, but he did not call me. Hence, my recourse in this matter was to dispute the charge with ******** *******. I remain resolute in my claim of negligence, something which given the facts and excess costs of investigating, documenting, and rectifying the damage is very well supported and I have no doubt that ******** ******* (or any other authority) will find in my favor.
  I have attached the finding of the post remediation testing (done immediately after the service), as well as documentation that even the HEPA vacuuming was not completed with care or thoroughness. This was a careless and negligent effort on the part of your company and you must be held accountable.
  -********* *******
  
  From the March 20, 2025, post testing:
  “• Basement ceiling insulation had been removed from the rear basement utility area.
  Some of the ceiling framing and main level sub-flooring in this area were stained and
  suspect visible mold was observed. A tape lift sample taken from the exposed ceiling
  framing and sub-flooring confirmed three mold spore types. This result is considered
  unacceptable.
  • Visible dust and staining were observed on the left sill plate of the basement rear utility
  room. A tape lift sample taken from this area identified seven mold spore types along
  with a low level of hyphal fragments. This result is considered unacceptable.”
  
  
  <image002.png>
  
  I specifically asked Sean at the conclusion of the service if he scrubbed the floor plate as it was obvious that there was still white sediment on it – he stated yes – this testing shows that it was not done thoroughly.
  
  The following is documentation of the negligence photographed by one of three independent parties:
  
  
  <image003.png>
  
  
  
  <image004.png>
  
  
  
  <image005.png>
  
  
  
  <image006.png>
  
  
  <image007.png>
  
  

  May 13, 2025 email to *** *******:

  On May 13, 2025, at 2:51?PM, Holly A ***** *** <********************************> wrote:
  
  
  ?Please see attached our response to your claims (report attached).  Since you have decided to do a charge back with your credit card company, we have two options.  You can either give me a bank check for $1,370.93 or I can file a Mechanic's Lien on your house and then take you to Court.
  
  
  Please let me know within 48 hours which route you would like to take.
  
  
  Holly A. ***** ***
  Owner Pioneer Environmental
  * ******** *****
  **** **
  ********* ** *****
  ************

  May 13, 2025 *** ******* response:

  Ms. B****
  Before you threaten to put a mechanic’s lien on my home and take me to court, I would advise you to review the attached videos and contemplate the damning impact of this evidence against your threatened claim in a court of law. The evidence of negligence couldn’t be more clear. I gave you a gracious pass by only requesting a refund of the fee for the unacceptable/negligent service (a dispute for which one global financial authority has already found in my favor) and not immediately pursuing legal action against your company. However, should you decide to misguidedly pursue this matter further, I will be forced to take counter action against your company for negligence and damages and contact any and all consumer and regulatory agencies that govern your license and business practices. 
  Do the respectable thing, Holly. Admit Sean did not perform the work properly as even you can clearly see from my documentation and put an end to this.
  Respectfully,
  ********* *******
  
  Sent from my iPhone

  Shortly after that email *** ******* wrote a slanderous ****** Review filled with lies that are refuted in the report attached regarding the Containment; the Air Scrubber which was removed after the cleaning was completed because we were never told she wanted a post cleaning air test; had we known she wanted the posttest we would have left the containment intact and the air scrubber running per the ***** **** protocol which would have stayed running for 24-48 hours and then the air test would have been performed.  When she complained about the humidity, it was explained that the application directions state to apply, leave wet and let air dry (this was provided to her).

   

  She refused to let my company come back and re-clean which is past practice it will state to do a re-clean if you fail a test.  

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/21/2025

  
  
  Complaint: ********
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because: There are significant inaccuracies and misrepresentations in Pioneer Environmental's response. I have attached a document that outlines all of these, as well as 4 pictures to document the dust, debris and residue that was left by Pioneer (I have more clear video documentation that was filmed by another remediation company after Pioneer performed their incomplete HEPA/antimicrobial cleaning of the unfinished basement area, but I can not upload it). I have also attached photographs.  
  
  As noted in my attached response, I have reached out several times to Pioneer's counsel to attempt to settle this matter before the BBB's deadline to respond. I even cut the bank check Ms. Bryk demanded in order to prevent a mechanic's lien on my home and sent a copy to her counsel. I have not received a response from Pioneer's counsel, which has compelled me to submit my response to ensure that the inaccuracies in Pioneer's response are documented by the BBB.

  If the BBB can not access the response document, it is pasted below:

  RESPONSE FROM CLAIMANT:
  To begin, I received a call from
  Ms. B***** attorney, ****** ****, on May 14, 2025 at 4:18pm asking to discuss
  the matter. I returned his call at 9:00 am on May 15, 2025 and left a voicemail
  asking him to call me back. Upon his return call that same morning, we
  discussed the matter and Pioneer Environmental CT’s request that I withdraw my
  complaint with the BBB and negative review on ****** (which had already been
  removed the previous evening, and was only done in response to Ms. B*****
  threat to attach a mechanic’s lien to my property and take me to court) as a
  settlement of refunding my money for the work performed. Over text, I asked
  Attorney **** to draft a mutual release agreement so that we could resolve this
  matter expeditiously without any further response to the BBB. He acknowledged
  my text, but ignored my follow up inquiry as to his intent to draft a release. On
  May 16, 2025 I yet again reached out to Attorney **** via e-mail with an offer
  of settlement, outlining two paths for proceeding forward. He replied that he
  appreciated my e-mail, but needed more time. I suggested that we connect on
  Monday, May 19, 2025. I have since sent two follow up e-mails asking for a
  response, but I have not received one. This lack of reply and the BBB’s
  deadline for response has compelled me to respond to Ms. B***** comments on my
  claim.
  I want to point out that Ms.
  B***** response of May 14, 2025 is laden with inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
  Her lack of credibility should be considered in your review of this claim. I
  have provided evidence to support my claims and response.

  Pioneer response:
  We first encountered *** ******* on March 11, 2024 for an
  inspection of the kitchen for suspect mold and complaint about an odor. 

  
  My response: This is not accurate – Pioneer
  Environmental CT (“Pioneer’) originally came to my house on March 11, 2024 to
  do an inspection of my bathroom for suspect mold due to a suspected leak from a
  loose faucet against my bathtub tile. Sean M******* investigated by using a
  moisture meter and reported that there was likely no mold. He inspected the tub
  from below in the utility part of the basement and could not see any
  leak/moisture. However, as we were inspecting the bathroom and pulling the
  vanity away from the wall, we noticed black mold on the bottom of the vanity
  and back of the granite backsplash. Pioneer did not make any recommendations
  for remediation of the mold at that time. The vanity was subsequently replaced
  by the homeowner. I paid $275.00 for this inspection service.
  
  Pioneer response:
  On Friday April 5th, 2024 we dropped off a hydroxyl machine
  for three days for the odor problem, which we only billed her for two
  days. 

  
  My response: This is also not accurate – On
  Tuesday, April 2, 2024, Pioneer came to my home to install a hydroxyl machine
  for three days. This was related to the new front picture window that I had
  replaced by ******* ** ********. My concern was that the containment barrier
  that Renewal used ripped during installation and I want to make sure no mold
  spores had settled in my living room area. At the same time, I asked Sean to
  look under the kitchen sink cabinet as I had experienced a sprayer leak in May
  2015 and was concerned there may be some hidden mold under the cabinet. An
  inspection was done with a flexible camera and there was deemed to be mold
  present. I was told that the mold was “dormant” and should eventually be
  removed, but was not an immediate threat. I paid $600.00 for this service.
  
  Subsequently, in May 2024, I
  myself found a spot of visible black mold on a HVAC duct in the utility portion
  of my basement. I called *** ************* to do sample testing of the mold on
  May 23, 2024. The report came back on May 30, 2024. I subsequently shared the
  results with Pioneer. Pioneer noted that the mold was “allergenic” and not
  “toxic” so there was no rush to remediate.
  On June 8, 2024 I contracted
  Covid and was very sick for an extended period of time and unable to proceed
  with getting an estimate on the remediation until August 7, 2024. I have
  retained all of my text messages to Sean to document this.
  
  On August 7, 2024 Pioneer again
  came to my home to visualize the utility room mold to formulate an estimate for
  remediation and also took a sample of sheetrock from the kitchen area to test
  for asbestos. On August 12, 2024 Pioneer provided me with an estimate for
  remediation as well as the results of the asbestos testing.
  
  Pioneer response:
  Our third encounter was on March 18, 2025 where she hired us
  to do a cleaning of the mechanical/storage/laundry area which included removal
  of fiberglass insulation and disposal, HEPA vacuuming and application of an
  anti-microbial. (please see attached report). 

  
  My response: This is also not accurate – This
  would have been our fourth encounter.
  On March 21, 2025 *** ******* called and stated she (was) not satisfied
  with the work that was performed and there was humidity, no containment, and
  then said she had testing done and claimed it did not pass.  We asked for a copy of the testing, which she
  sent and that also indicated that there was previous testing in May 2024, none
  of the prior testing was ever mentioned, nor was the desire for post cleaning
  testing. 
  This is also not accurate – I
  e-mailed Sean on March 28, 2025 after the final testing results came in from
  *** ************* with a copy of the report attached. He called me back.
  Pioneer did not ask for a copy.
  
  From the *** report:
  Basement ceiling insulation had been removed
  from the rear basement utility area.
  Some of the ceiling framing and main level
  sub-flooring in this area were stained and
  suspect visible mold was observed. A tape lift
  sample taken from the exposed ceiling
  framing and sub-flooring confirmed three mold
  spore types. This result is considered
  unacceptable.
  • Visible dust and staining
  were observed on the left sill plate of the basement rear utility
  room. A tape lift sample taken from this area
  identified seven mold spore types along
  with a low level of hyphal fragments. This result is
  considered unacceptable.
  The prior testing from May 23,
  2024 was shared with Sean at his visit on August 7, 2024.  It was the basis for the remediation estimate
  provided. How else could he have designed a remediation plan and know what type
  of mold he was removing?

  Pioneer response:
  We offered to come back and re-clean at no charge which she
  refused to give us the opportunity to correct the perceived wrong.  She was supposed to call us back with her
  decision on the re-clean and never did.  She did do a credit card charge back on April 2, 2025.  On May 5, 2025 when I sent her an email
  regarding the chargeback:

  
  My response: Pioneer clearly did not do a
  thorough job nor follow the protocol they indicated on the work estimate.
  The HEPA vacuuming was incomplete – they left a blanket of dust (upon which mold feeds) on top of my HVAC duct and former construction debris in the ceiling joists. This is documented in photos and videos that I can provide upon request.
  The antimicrobial spray was still evident on the joists where it was more difficult to reach – as if they weren’t bothered to move the washer/dryer/refrigerator to reach. This is documented in photos and videos that I can provide upon request.
  There was evident visual mold/staining remaining on the ceiling joists. This is documented in photos and videos that I can provide upon request.
  They did not use negative air containment nor leave the air scrubber for 24-hours as listed on the job estimate. They have admitted to this in Ms. B***** response.
  They also relied upon my small residential dehumidifier instead of a commercial grade dehumidifier, which created a lengthy damp environment for the residual dust/mold to grow/spread without the use of the air scrubber (which should have been left in place for 24-hours per the estimate) while the basement dried out.
  Further, why would the protocol
  be any different if there was testing or no testing? The project should follow
  protocol to ensure that it would pass testing regardless. I refused to have
  Pioneer back to my house because after inspection by three industry experts who
  advised that Pioneer egregiously neglected to do the work correctly, they were
  deemed not trustworthy nor competent to do the work correctly.
  This is inaccurate – At the
  conclusion of my call with Sean at approximately 3:50pm on March 28, 2025, (I
  had to leave to call to attend a 4:00 pm appointment), he stated that he would
  call me that following Monday. I never heard back from him. There was no
  decision to be made about having Pioneer come back – it was already decided
  that I would not have them back given the egregious negligence on the work
  performed.
  After not hearing back from
  Pioneer on Monday about being refunded for my money, I disputed the charge with
  ******** *******. Pioneer had ample time and opportunity to respond to ********
  ******* about the chargeback, but did not. Instead on May 5, 2025, Pioneer
  e-mailed me directly and I responded the same day with visual evidence of their
  negligence. Subsequent to my response, on May 13, 2025 Pioneer then threatened
  to put a mechanic’s lien on my home and take me to court if I did not give them
  a bank check. I responded with further video evidence to support my position,
  but on May 14, 2025 Pioneer engaged counsel to begin legal action against me.
  
  
  On May 15, 2025 Pioneer’s counsel
  called me to ask me to rescind my BBB complaint and online reviews (which had
  actually already been taken down within hours of being posted) in exchange for
  a refund of the fee. I proposed executing a mutual settlement and release
  agreement, but their attorney has not responded. Hence, given the BBB’s
  seven-day deadline to respond, I am now compelled to respond to defend my
  position against their inaccuracies in their response to you.

  
  From: Holly A ***** ***
  <********************************>
  Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 9:00 AM
  To: ********* ******* <********************>
  Subject: Credit Card Chargeback
  
  Good Morning *** *******:
  
  I have received correspondence from my credit card company
  that you have disputed a charge of $1,370.93 for cleaning services performed at
  your home in **** *****.  Please contact
  me to discuss this matter so I can understand what is happening.
  
  Thank you,
  
  Holly A. ***** ***
  Owner Pioneer Environmental
  * ******** *****
  **** **
  ********* ** *****
  ************
  
  On May 5, 2025 this was her response:
  
  From: ********* ******* <********************>
  Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 3:33 PM
  To: Holly A ***** ***
  <********************************>
  Subject: RE: Credit Card Chargeback
  
  Dear Ms. B****
  As communicated via telephone to Sean M******* on Friday,
  March 21, 2025, the work that was performed in my home basement on March 18,
  2025, was not completed to acceptable standards. Standard protocols (negative
  air pressure during and industrial dehumidification and air scrubbers
  post-remediation) were not followed. Further, the HEPA vacuuming was not nearly
  thorough (see pictures taken from further inspection immediately after the
  service; the top of the HVAC duct work was also not even vacuumed (pictures
  documented as well, but not in my custody at the moment) and was layered in
  dust which exacerbated the mold spores left behind by the negligent cleaning/no
  negative air/residual dampness). The negligence on your company’s part resulted
  in a residual environment which not only tested as “unacceptable” and “high”
  mold in post-remediation testing, but upon further inspection may have
  contaminated my entire basement, including the finished portion. Your
  negligence forced me to spend significant monies (well in excess of what I paid
  to you) to consult with several other testing and remediation companies to
  validate the negligence and potential further contamination and it is all
  photographed, tested and documented. Sean took no accountability for this
  negligence in our telephone conversation of March 18, 2025. At the conclusion
  of the telephone conversation, he was to call me back the following Monday, but
  he did not call me. Hence, my recourse in this matter was to dispute the charge
  with ******** *******. I remain resolute in my claim of negligence, something
  which given the facts and excess costs of investigating, documenting, and
  rectifying the damage is very well supported and I have no doubt that ********
  ******* (or any other authority) will find in my favor.
  I have attached the finding of the post remediation testing
  (done immediately after the service), as well as documentation that even the
  HEPA vacuuming was not completed with care or thoroughness. This was a careless
  and negligent effort on the part of your company and you must be held
  accountable.
  -********* *******
  
  From the March 20, 2025, post testing:
  “• Basement ceiling insulation had been removed from the
  rear basement utility area.
  Some of the ceiling framing and main level sub-flooring in
  this area were stained and
  suspect visible mold was observed. A tape lift sample taken
  from the exposed ceiling
  framing and sub-flooring confirmed three mold spore types.
  This result is considered
  unacceptable.
  • Visible dust and staining were observed on the left sill
  plate of the basement rear utility
  room. A tape lift sample taken from this area identified
  seven mold spore types along
  with a low level of hyphal fragments. This result is
  considered unacceptable.”
  
  
  <image002.png>
  
  I specifically asked Sean at the conclusion of the service
  if he scrubbed the floor plate as it was obvious that there was still white
  sediment on it – he stated yes – this testing shows that it was not done
  thoroughly.
  
  The following is documentation of the negligence
  photographed by one of three independent parties:
  
  
  <image003.png>
  
  
  
  <image004.png>
  
  
  
  <image005.png>
  
  
  
  <image006.png>
  
  
  <image007.png>
  
  May 13, 2025 email to *** *******:
  
  On May 13, 2025, at 2:51?PM, Holly A ***** *** <********************************>
  wrote:
  
  
  ?Please see attached our response to your claims (report
  attached).  Since you have decided to do
  a charge back with your credit card company, we have two options.  You can either give me a bank check for
  $1,370.93 or I can file a Mechanic's Lien on your house and then take you to
  Court.
  
  
  Please let me know within 48 hours which route you would
  like to take.
  
  
  Holly A. ***** ***
  Owner Pioneer Environmental
  3 Research Drive
  Unit 11
  Branford, CT 06405
  203-676-3603
  
  May 13, 2025 *** ******* (name
  spelled incorrectly - *******) response:
  
  Ms. B****
  Before you threaten to put a mechanic’s lien on my home and
  take me to court, I would advise you to review the attached videos and
  contemplate the damning impact of this evidence against your threatened claim
  in a court of law. The evidence of negligence couldn’t be more clear. I gave
  you a gracious pass by only requesting a refund of the fee for the
  unacceptable/negligent service (a dispute for which one global financial
  authority has already found in my favor) and not immediately pursuing legal
  action against your company. However, should you decide to misguidedly pursue
  this matter further, I will be forced to take counter action against your
  company for negligence and damages and contact any and all consumer and
  regulatory agencies that govern your license and business practices.
  Do the respectable thing, Holly. Admit Sean did not perform
  the work properly as even you can clearly see from my documentation and put an
  end to this.
  Respectfully,
  ********* *******
  Sent from my iPhone

  
  Pioneer response:

  Shortly after that email *** ******* (incorrect spelling of my last name) wrote a
  slanderous ****** Review filled with lies that are refuted in the report
  attached regarding the Containment; the Air Scrubber which was removed after
  the cleaning was completed because we were never told she wanted a post
  cleaning air test; had we known she wanted the posttest we would have left the
  containment intact and the air scrubber running per the ***** **** protocol
  which would have stayed running for 24-48 hours and then the air test would
  have been performed.  When she complained
  about the humidity, it was explained that the application directions state to
  apply, leave wet and let air dry (this was provided to her).

  
  My response: A negative online review is not
  automatically considered slander. Defamation, which includes both libel
  (written) and slander (spoken), requires a false statement that damages
  someone's reputation. For an online review to be considered defamatory, it must
  be proven to be false, not just negative or unflattering.
  The quote for the work indicated
  negative air and air scrubber for a 24-hour period. Pioneer removed the air
  scrubber immediately at the conclusion of the work (approximately 4 hours).
  Pioneer’s argument here is invalid.
  
  Pioneer response:

  She refused to let my company come back and re-clean which
  is past practice it will state to do a re-clean if you fail a test. 

  
  My response: Pioneer clearly did not do a
  thorough job nor follow the protocol they indicated on the work estimate
  because they assumed that I would not do post-remediation testing. They have admitted that
  they did not use negative air or leave the negative air/scrubber for 24-hours
  as indicated on the work estimate. Further, why
  would the protocol be any different if there was testing or no testing? The
  project should follow protocol to ensure that it would pass testing regardless.
  I refused to have Pioneer back to my house because after inspection by three
  industry experts who advised that Pioneer egregiously neglected to do the work correctly,
  they were deemed not trustworthy nor competent to do the work correctly.
  I have further video and
  photographic evidence taken by Hightower Remediation and DryCo LLC to further
  support my case. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear and supportive of my
  claim. I am more than willing to provide that to the BBB.
  On May 15, 2025 Pioneer’s counsel
  called me to ask me to withdraw my BBB complaint and online reviews (which had
  actually already been taken down within hours of being posted) in exchange for
  a refund of the fee.
  
  Attached Files/Documents
  ******* Cleaning_companycam_report (2).pdf
  The consumer provided the following when submitting the
  Complaint to BBB
  IMG_1542.png
  image003.png
  image004.png
  image005.png
  image006.png
  image007.png

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

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/21/2025

  I would like to be able to present the video documentation I have of the unacceptable work done in the basement in the attached zip file.
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/30/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore 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.

  Pioneer Environmental was recommended to me by a friend, ****** ***** to fumigate my automobile. The car had been exposed to carpet beetles and I had been dealing with the issue myself since May of 2024. My insurance company paid my claim and I was looking to fix the car. I had asked ******, at least 6 times if this company was going to fumigate my car and not bomb it, she said she was having dinner with the owner that evening and was going to address my concerns. I asked if the company would guarantee their work. The next day I was told all of my concerns were met and we were ready to go. I have all text messages to prove how adamant I was about the car being fumigated and not fogged. I dropped the car off on Thursday morning, I got a call on Friday, the car was done. I picked the car up at 6pm, I went straight to ***** because I was buying all brand new clothes and sneakers to make sure these beetles were not brought back into the car. After I went shopping, I sat in the parking lot ******** hotel rooms because I was planning on staying at a hotel for a couple of nights. Night time came and the bugs were back. The very first thing the following morning, I got in touch with Holly, one of the owners and asked her if the car was fumigated, she said yes. In the long run, she misrepresented the business. I asked for my money back and she basically said she that fumigating and fogging are the same things and she did the job I asked for and was not paying me back. The following morning, I forwarded to here a website the detailed the difference in the two. I sent her a text and asked here to visit the website and learn the difference between the two, she refused.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/30/2024

  The customer misunderstood the process on her car, it was treated properly in compliance with manufacturer's instructions.  She came to my office today at 2:30PM and I issued a refund.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/08/2024

  I am so sorry for the delay.  I left a message stating that the business had refunded me the money immediately after she received the complaint from BBB.  She did not admit any wrong doing on her part, just that she was refunding the payment, as she did immediately afterwards.  Thank you for your time in this matter.