Complaints

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

close

Find a Location

Heritage Restoration 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

• 

  Heritage Restoration Inc

  1581 N National Ave Chehalis, WA 98532-2210

• 

  Heritage Restoration Inc

  418C 112th St S Tacoma, WA 98444

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:05/09/2025

  Type:Order 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.

  Following a traumatic house fire on May 3, 2025, our family of 6 was referred to Heritage Restoration by a fire investigator who later was discovered to be an employee as well. *****, the president of the company, arrived at our home on May 4 and used fear-based tactics to pressure us into signing a contract. No written scope of work or estimate was provided. ***** insisted we hand over our house key and told us to focus on our family and not worry about the details.That night we had serious concerns. On May 5, we called twice to discuss our concerns only to have our concerns disregarded. We finally asked that all activity cease and exercised our right to seek other estimates. ***** acknowledged this right during a phone call. Despite our clear withdrawal requests, crews arrived at our home, and work began without our consent. ***** and another employee, ****, were rude and confrontational, and **** verbally disparaged **** ***** Restoration, a company we were considering. After much interrogation from Heritage, **** retrieved our key and explicitly told them via text less on the morning of May 7th that we did not wish to work them any longer. Via text, ***** consented.On May 8, ***** sent an email threatening legal action for breach of contract, despite our timely cancellation and complete lack of documentation. We never received a cancellation disclosure, written estimate, or scope of work during this whole process. We asked twice for work to be halted before it began, and they continued boxing up our items.This has caused significant emotional stress for our family (four kids), who were already traumatized by the fire and displacement.Desired Resolution:We are requesting that Heritage Restoration acknowledge our cancellation and cease all threats of legal action. We want written confirmation that the contract is null and void. We also request that they stop all direct and harassing communication with our family.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/13/2025

  Response Regarding Misstatements and Project Involvement
  It is accurate that the family experienced a traumatic house fire on May 3, 2025. We extend our continued sympathy during this difficult time. However, many of the other statements made are misleading, inaccurate,and presented in a way that could be perceived as threatening. We feel it is important to clarify the facts.
  
  Initial Emergency Response and Communication
  Upon receiving the initial call for emergency services, our manager arrived onsite in a clearly marked vehicle, wearing company-branded attire. Shortly afterward, another team member arrivedalso in uniform and a branded vehicleto begin securing the home. This occurred on a Saturday evening, and we promptly began taking the necessary steps to assist the family.
  At 8:02 AM on Sunday, I was contacted directly by the homeowner, requesting that I come out to discuss the project. Upon arrival,another restoration company was already onsite (Not **** *****).  I remained for nearly two hours, answering questions, explaining our unique approach, and highlighting our five-year warranty and 20+ years of industry experience. The homeowners expressed satisfaction and asked how to proceed. I explained that, in order to begin,contracts would need to be signed, after which we would mobilize the following morning. Contracts were signed, and we moved forward as agreed.
  
  Project Initiation
  The following morning, our scoping/documentation specialist arrived at 8:00 AM, and shortly after our contents team with tablet and a covered trailer. Equipped with tablets, the team began carefully documenting and handling the family's sentimental and delicate belongings, as planned.
  
  Clarification on Key Exchange
  The assertion that I insisted the homeowners hand over their keys and instructed them to focus on their family while we handled everything is both inaccurate and illogical. After reviewing and signing the contracts, we discussed installing a realtor-style lockbox. As they did not have a spare key,they voluntarily provided one of their two keys. I assured them I would have a copy made and return the original the next morningwhich I did as promised.
  
  Addressing Allegations of Fear-Based Tactics
  The claim that we employed fear-based tactics to pressure the homeowners into signing is completely unfounded. Our approach is based on transparency, education, and client referrals. I was invited to the property by the homeowners and did not solicit their business through any form of fear-based tactics.
  
  Interactions with Insurance and Other Contractors
  The claim that I was rude or confrontational is also untrue.We maintained a professional and cooperative relationship with the homeowners until they were contacted by their insurance company and introduced to **** ***** Restoration of ******, **. Despite being aware that we had an executed contract, **** ***** representatives arrived with multiple vehicles and 4 staff members and spoke with the homeowners onsite. Soon after, we were instructed to stop our documentation and content recovery efforts, which we complied with immediately. 
  The statement that they were still considering other contractors makes no sense as they had signed contracts with us as well as scheduled work to begin.  Only after discussions with their insurance company who no doubt encouraged them to breach their contract and go with their vendor, did they begin to consider **** *****.  Phone logs will clarify the time lines. 
  
  Contractual Concerns
  A few days later, we received a text message from one of the homeowners that they have decided to go with another company. I respectfully advised them of the potential consequences of a contract breach and encouraged them to carefully consider their decision. It is noteworthy that, at the time of signing, they were forthcoming with their claim and insurance contact information, but once they transitioned to the insurance-recommended contractor, they ceased responding to our inquiries regarding who their assigned adjuster waswho no doubt influenced their decisions.
  We take our reputation seriously and are committed to ethical, transparent business practices. The statements made regarding our conduct are not only false, but they also misrepresent the events that occurred.  Timelines have also been misrepresented to mislead the facts in the matter. 
  

  Conclusion
  We take our reputation, as well as our contractual obligations, seriously. Our team acted with professionalism, transparency, and urgency in a time of crisis. Unfortunately, several public statements have misrepresented both the timeline and nature of our involvement. These mischaracterizations are not only false but harmful to our business.
  We respectfully request that any statements made in reference to this matter reflect the factual sequence of events. Should additional documentation or clarification be required, we are willing to provide it.
  
  Sincerely,
  ***** *******, Pres.
  Heritage Restoration, Inc.

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/13/2025

   
  Complaint: 23309921
  
  We respectfully reject the businesss response, as it contains several inaccuracies and mischaracterizations, and it fails to acknowledge the core issues we raised.

  We experienced a traumatic house fire on May 3, 2025. While we appreciate that Heritage responded quickly, that does not excuse what followed: signing legally binding documents under emotional duress, without a detailed scope of work or understanding of our contractual obligations. This was not a process grounded in transparency or consent, despite the companys claims to the contrary.
  
  Key Points of Dispute:
  
  1. No Scope of Work or Written Estimates Prior to Signing:
  We were not provided a written scope of work or itemized estimate before being asked to sign a contract. We were emotionally vulnerable and under the impression that documents were needed only to begin immediate emergency servicesnot to initiate an exclusive, full restoration contract.

  2. Pressure During a Traumatic Time:
  Despite what was said in the companys response, we felt pressured to commit quickly. No mention was made of our right to seek other bids or delay signing until a clear plan and cost breakdown were available. In that moment of crisis, this was not a fully informed or voluntary agreement.

  3. Minimal to No Work Completed:
  While a team did arrive to take photographs and begin initial documentation, no substantial work was completed. Our insurance adjuster has confirmed they are willing to pay for any actual work performed, and we have never refused to compensate Heritage for that.

  4. Desire to Work With Chosen Contractor:
  Our family has the right to work with a contractor we trustone that aligns with our values and communication expectations. Our request is simple: to resolve this respectfully by paying for whatever work (if any) was completed and to move forward with a contractor of our choice. That is not an unreasonable ask.

  5. Impact on Our Family:
  This situation is adding unnecessary stress and conflict during an already devastating time for our family. Our children lost their home. Were doing our best to rebuild, and this contractual dispute is only making recovery harder.

  Conclusion:
  We reject Heritages response and request a reasonable resolution: allow us to pay fairly for whatever verifiable work was done and release us from the contract. We acted in good faith, provided insurance details, and have been transparent from the beginning. We urge the company to show the same level of respect, understanding, and humanity.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *****

  Business Response

  Date: 05/17/2025

  Heritage Restoration****** Follow-Up Response to Complaint from Mr. **** *****
  We appreciate the opportunity to further respond to Mr. ****** concerns, and we again express our sincere sympathy to his family in the wake of the devastating house fire on May 3, 2025. We fully recognize the emotional weight such a loss carries and the complexity that can follow in its aftermath. Our aim is to bring both clarity and professionalism to this matter while extending compassion during an undeniably difficult time.
  
  1. Scope of Work and Signing of Contract
  It is our standard protocol to clearly explain the nature of the agreements we present. In this case, I met with the homeowners at their request, answered detailed questions, and reviewed the contracts before any work began. These documents were not presented under high pressure tactics, nor were they mischaracterized. They explicitly outlined the scope and nature of the services being authorizednot merely emergency services, but a comprehensive restoration plan.
  While we acknowledge the challenging emotional circumstances, we must clarify that the contract was signed voluntarily and included no provisions for temporary or non-binding engagement.
  
  2. Pressure and Contractor Selection
  We strongly reject the implication that our team employed pressure tactics or withheld the homeowners right to seek additional estimates. Our process is built on transparency and trust. While clients are always free to explore alternatives before committing, once a legally binding agreement is executed and work begins, we are entitled to fulfill our role under the contractor be made whole in the event of early termination.
  
  3. Work Completed and Compensation
  Substantial preparatory efforts occurred in the first 24 hours following contract execution. These included onsite documentation, deployment of a contents recovery team, and resource mobilization based on the urgency communicated by the homeowners themselves. These efforts resulted in real labor, time, and operational costs. 
  We have not refused the idea of being fairly compensated for services renderedwe are, in fact, requesting it. However, we cannot agree to a resolution that ignores the time, expense, and opportunity cost already incurred by our company as well as loss profits caused by breach of contracts, as well as defamation caused by inaccurate information publicly posted.
  
  4. Communication and Conduct
  All interactions with the homeowners were professional, respectful, and in good faith. Once they decided to pursue a different contractordespite a signed agreementwe honored their wishes by halting all activity.  We also made repeated efforts to encourage the homeowner's to rethink their decision and honor their contracts.  
  
  5. Breach of Contract and Business Impact
  While we empathize deeply with the family's situation, it is also necessary to acknowledge that they entered into a legally binding contract and they subsequently breached it without cause. This has caused Heritage Restoration real and measurable financial harmnot only in terms of labor and materials but also the opportunity cost and financial harm.  
  Our company operates on principles of trust, ethics, and service.  We also expect our clients to do the same.

  Conclusion
  We will continue to offer a path forward that is reasonable and respectful:
  Compensation for documented and verifiable work performed, loss profits, along with consideration for defamation.

  A mutual release of contract once compensation is received.
  
  Again, we extend our heartfelt sympathy to the Kurke family. We truly wish them strength and healing as they rebuild. At the same time, we respectfully ask that our rights as a service provider be acknowledged and protected under the law and the signed agreement.

  
  Sincerely,
  ***** *******
  President, Heritage Restoration******

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/17/2025

   
  Response to Business Rebuttal Case ID: ********
  
  Dear *******,
  
  Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the follow-up from Heritage Restoration, Inc.
  
  While I appreciate the companys expression of sympathy and their formal tone, I must firmly reject several points made in their rebuttal:
  
  1. Nature of the Contract & Consent Under Duress
  The contract in question was presented during the first 24 hours following a traumatic house fire, during a time when my family and I were emotionally vulnerable and overwhelmed. Despite the companys assertions, the documents were not fully explained, nor was the long-term scope of the agreement made clear. The focus of the conversation was on emergency services, not full-scale restoration. We were led to believe we were authorizing immediate helpnot entering into a binding, exclusive restoration contract. This distinction is critical, and their framing of the situation does not reflect our experience.
  
  
  2. Pressure and Misrepresentation
  Heritage states there were no pressure tactics used, yet the urgency of the moment was clearly leveraged. In a state of crisis, when a family is desperate for immediate help and unsure of the next steps, the presentation of contracts with ambiguous scope can very much constitute undue pressure, even without overt coercion. The idea that we were freely weighing multiple contractor options during that window is inaccurate and dismissive of the actual context.
  
  3. Work Performed and Disputed Value
  We are not denying that some services were performed in the early stages. We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to compensate Heritage for verifiable, reasonable work completed during that period. What we dispute is their attempt to anchor us to a long-term contract based on that initial interaction, and to demand further compensation for lost profits and speculative opportunity costs. These are not grounded in reasonable business practice, especially when the contracts basis is itself in dispute.
  
  4. Defamation Claim
  The suggestion that we have engaged in defamation is both unfounded and inappropriate. Our complaint is a truthful account of our experience, shared in good faith through appropriate channels. Raising this as a threat is unprofessional and seems more like an attempt to intimidate us than a legitimate claim.
  
  5. Path Forward
  We remain committed to resolving this reasonably.

  We are willing to:
  Compensate Heritage for specific, documented emergency services rendered during the initial 24-hour period.
  Sign a mutual release of the contract once fair payment is made.

  We are not willing to pay for future work that was neither performed nor agreed upon with clear, informed consent, nor will we entertain claims for speculative lost profits or alleged reputational harm stemming from our good-faith efforts to resolve this.
  
  Sincerely,
  **** *****
  
  

  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/25/2025

  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.

  In repairing my house due to a tree falling my roof was replaced and I've been trying for 4 years to resolve problems with the installation. I didn't hire the roofing company that they used and the roofer says it looks fine and Heritage says they've had it inspected and my pictures don't show anything wrong. They won't come out to look at it and I'm constantly getting ignored by the owner who is the only one to make a decision. The roofer was out last June/July and said he was sending someone to make corrections and that's the last communication. Don't answer their phone and office girl said she would get back to me when they schedule the repair. I had two different roofing companies look at it and both said half of the shingles are not secured on part of the roof and not sealed around windows and will be damaging the wood. I called Heritage again and **** said it would be discussed at their meeting the following Monday. That was last September when I had called 9/4, 9/20, 10/11 and 10/22. Apparently the owner had been out of the country when I was waiting for a response. He finally emailed saying they were done with the roof and it was fine. He hasn't been out to look at it and doesn't see a need to. I asked for names of contractors that inspected the roof and owner of roofing company. He has not returned my email with that information. It's been 3 weeks. He won't honor 5 yr workmanship warranty. Plus the painting they did has bubbled and cracked and blames it on the age of house and wasn't paid for primer from insurance and he also didn't put primer in his estimate. Basically I need to have that side of house repainted and a new roof since it's easier to replace than try to repair according to two different roofing companies. They should have done this correctly but won't repair or care what it looks like.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/08/2025

  Dear Better Business Bureau,
  Thank you for bringing *** *.'s concerns to our attention. We value customer feedback and are committed to addressing any issues in a professional and transparent manner. We understand that *** has expressed frustration with the roof installation and painting work performed on her home, and we would like to clarify the situation based on our records and communications.
  Roof *******************************start="539" data-end="542"> Our team, along with the roofing contractor, has reviewed the concerns raised by *** *. and conducted several inspections of the roof. After these inspections, it was determined that the roof was installed correctly and in accordance with industry standards. The roofer has also made minor cosmetic repairs in response to Kims concerns. The photos provided by *** did not show any installation issues, and we have communicated this to her on multiple occasions. We stand by our assessment of the roofs installation.
  Painting and *************************start="1100" data-end="1103"> With regard to the painting, the insurance companys estimate for repairs was significantly less than what *** was expecting. The insurance company provided a scope for minor repairs, amounting to less than $300 before tax, which was considered a minimum charge. *** has requested a more extensive repair, including scraping the entire side of the house down to bare wood, priming, and painting. While we understand her desire for a more thorough repair due to the age and condition of the siding, this level of work was not approved by the insurance company, which felt that the damage did not justify such extensive work. We have explained this to *** on several occasions, and unfortunately, we are limited to the work covered by the insurance claim.
  Further ***********************start="1890" data-end="1893"> In previous communications, we requested that *** provide additional photographs to support the concerns she raised. The pictures that have been submitted thus far do not show the issues described. To ensure that all concerns are fully addressed, we kindly request that *** send any further documentation that may substantiate her claims.  

  Sincerely, 

  *****

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/19/2025

  I returned from being out of state and received this response from H3132323830313430343*H. ******* response is incorrect and don't know where he is getting his information. He hasn't responded to my request for the names of the contractors that inspected the roof. Two other roofing companies confirmed the roof has issues with not being sealed around the windows and half of the shingles aren't secured properly. I have a shingle that has slid away from where supposedly attached plus some shingles look torn on the edges. **** at H3132323830313430343*H was given a list to forward to the roofer and has never followed up to see if it was done nor inspected the roof other than walking around the house. Roofer said he would return to secure the metal stripping that is not secured. That's the last I've heard or seen of him. I did not request for the house be stripped of the paint and reprised and painted. The paint they sprayed should have been brushed in areas to avoid water getting in-between and would have avoided getting bubbles and the paint cracking. The paint had no issues before they sprayed the paint over the existing paint. I have pictures showing that. I provided pictures to ***** and he denies any problems with the roof but won't look at it personally to have areas pointed out. I shouldn't have to do his job and get on the roof to take closer pictures. He refuses to look at the roof and apparently believes there were two inspections. He doesn't care that two other licensed roofing companies looked at it and don't agree with what he is saying. ******* * year warranty on workmanship apparently doesn't apply. His comment isn't accurate making it look like they have done a thorough inspection and have explained everything to me. Hard to deal with ***** since he's been paid. I have been told that others have had problems with this company and are surprised they are still in business. I've also shown pictures to others and they don't understand how he doesn't see the problems but he makes a decision by cellphone photos. I shouldn't have to pay to repair their poor workmanship. 

  I should add that the cosmetic repairs ***** is perhaps referring to is that the top of my chimney was missing, the galvanized stripping on the top of the house and dormer windows was missing along with the ornamental *****. The white metal stripping had been replaced with black and didn't match the garage. I don't think that was too much to ask because it was there originally. He keeps making excuses and not addressing the problem. I asked him to meet with other roofing companies at my house so the problems could be pointed out but he won't. He is saying there isn't a problem with the roof but without looking he doesn't know for sure and any of his employees could be telling him it's fine so they don't have to fix it. I shouldn't have to provide all the evidence so he will disagree and deny repairs.