Complaints

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

close

Find a Location

AC Enviromental Inc 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

• 

  AC Enviromental Inc

  PO Box 27 Wilsonville, IL 62093-0027

  
• 

  AC Enviromental Inc

  Granite City, IL 62040

  

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:01/15/2025

  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.

  As per the BBBs recommendation, we have contacted the ************************ for help with this matter. And have also spoken to ****** attorney. They want to settle and have currently been made an offer by said attorney. We countered his offer on 5/20/25 and currently waiting to hear back. 

  Business Response

  Date: 05/19/2025

  RESPONSE
  For the reasons that follow, I do not believe that AC Environmental
  (Respondent) is liable to **** ******** (Complainant) from alleged negligent
  performance as described in the Complaint.
  Respondent performed the job pursuant to its standard operating procedures.
  The flashings on the home were in need of replacement when the job was completed.
  No evidence is possessed by Respondent to support the Complainants allegations
  relating to asbestos exposure. Such leftover asbestos would be contrary to
  Respondents standard operating procedures which are meant to eliminate, or minimize,
  residual asbestos left behind after a job. The thrust of Complainants complaint (i.e.
  asbestos) has progressively developed over time with little communication to
  Respondent. The lack of communication with Respondent has left Respondent without
  the ability to determine whether such damage existed and their cause.
  First, it is helpful to discuss where Complainant and Respondent agree.
  Complainant and Respondent entered into an agreement wherein, in return for removal
  of asbestos and vinyl siding. The Respondent was not hired to remove the homes wrap.
  The contract was executed on or about November 1, 2024. The lion share of the work
  was completed on November 16, 2024. The remainder was completed on or about
  November 20, 2024.
  Regarding the flashings, the Claimants timeline is incorrect and unreliable. On
  November 16, 2024, Respondent removed the asbestos and vinyl siding from the house
  (excluding the porch). The window flashings were connected to the asbestos and vinyl
  siding by caulk. To remove the siding, Respondent utilized the practice of cutting the
  caulk. In some areas, it may have been possible to remove the siding without cutting the
  caulk. Before and after pictures were taken and do not support the assertion that the
  damage to the window flashings was so extensive. In fact, despite such serious damage
  claimed to be apparent within hours of the jobs completion on November 16, 2024,
  Complainant made no mention of the damages when Respondent returned to complete
  the job on November 20, 2024.
  Doc ID: ****************************************
  It is an unlikely result that asbestos contamination existed, asbestos debris was
  left behind, after the job was completed. Company policy for asbestos removals in
  circumstances similar to this is to use a poly tarp to catch falling asbestos debris from
  removing siding. After securing and removing fallen debris, Respondents crew(s)
  perform a visual review of the premise. In this instance, such practices failed to reveal
  the asbestos contamination on the houses wrap or yard. Photographs do not reveal the
  alleged asbestos complained of by Complainant.
  Complainant did not inform Respondent of the asbestos concerns regarding
  houses wrap and yard. It is further unlikely that a subsequent siding company would
  have installed siding over the house wrap if asbestos was present. It is unlikely that any
  asbestos would remain, regarding Complainant daughters window, after a subsequent
  contractor removed the siding. These complaints were added only when a complaint
  was filed with the BBB and ***********************************
  Complainant made no meaningful attempt to resolve the main thrust (i.e.
  asbestos) of the complaint. The Complainants procedure of bringing these issues has
  deprived the Respondent of discovering whether such alleged damages actually exist
  and their cause. Moreover, assuming the existence of the damages, Complainant has
  made no efforts to mitigate her damages.
  Respectfully Submitted,
  ______________________________
  ****** *******, President
  /s/ ***** ******** #*****
  Attorney for Respondent