Bullseye Leak Detection Inc.

Attached you will find the findings of the technician who did the leak detection that day we well as pictures that were taken on site.  With all the information that was gathered that day from the tenant and the evidence that was obtained by the thermal imaging camera this is a true statement....

 We apologize that your insurance claim might have be denied.  But the information provided was obtained by a professional and is one of our Senior Leak Detectors.  We will not remove the duration from the report.  We were hired by an insurance company who needs answers for the cause and duration for any leaks.  We have also done a leak detection for another location for the insured at 9 [redacted].The pictures that were provided by [redacted] are not the same for the location in question.  Please let us know if any more information is needed.  We have also contacted the insurance agent who have hired us to do this leak detection concerning this complaint.

I am rejecting this response because:The pictures I provided are by fact exactly at the subject property - [redacted]. That was where the leaked water dropped down from the ceiling downstairs below the upstairs bathroom. You can easily verify on-site if you'd like. However, by providing nonfactual information to defend a complaint is both unethical and unprofessional.  To conclude "Duration appears to be 3-6 months" without any visual inspection of what the actual damage looks like and only by looking at the thermal imaging camera is unprofessional and irresponsible. It's like science fiction and does not have a standing in the court.

Review: [redacted]

Invoice #[redacted]

Inspection description misrepresented the damage as "Duration appears to be 3-6 months" which is not only nonfactual but also misleading. Tenants can testify that it was rapid leakages that caused water literally dropping down from the ceiling. See attached photos.Desired Settlement: Take out the nonfactual conclusion "Duration appears to be 3-6 months" statement and re-issue the report to me.

Business

Response:

Attached you will find the findings of the technician who did the leak detection that day we well as pictures that were taken on site. With all the information that was gathered that day from the tenant and the evidence that was obtained by the thermal imaging camera this is a true statement. We apologize that your insurance claim might have be denied. But the information provided was obtained by a professional and is one of our Senior Leak Detectors. We will not remove the duration from the report. We were hired by an insurance company who needs answers for the cause and duration for any leaks. We have also done a leak detection for another location for the insured at 9 [redacted].The pictures that were provided by [redacted] are not the same for the location in question. Please let us know if any more information is needed. We have also contacted the insurance agent who have hired us to do this leak detection concerning this complaint.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:The pictures I provided are by fact exactly at the subject property - [redacted]. That was where the leaked water dropped down from the ceiling downstairs below the upstairs bathroom. You can easily verify on-site if you'd like. However, by providing nonfactual information to defend a complaint is both unethical and unprofessional. To conclude "Duration appears to be 3-6 months" without any visual inspection of what the actual damage looks like and only by looking at the thermal imaging camera is unprofessional and irresponsible. It's like science fiction and does not have a standing in the court.