To: Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
Mold…read moreAssessors and Remediators Program
P.O. Box 12157
Austin, Texas 78711
Complainant: GIGI l
Date of Loss: March 14, 2026
Company: Hillier Restoration, LLC d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration of Greater Houston
Reported License Numbers: RCO1356 and/or RCO1381
Subject: Complaint Concerning Substandard Water-Mitigation and Mold-Related Practices
I am submitting this formal complaint concerning the services provided at my home by Hillier Restoration, LLC, doing business publicly as Paul Davis Restoration of Greater Houston ("Paul Davis"). Paul Davis presented itself to me and operated at my property under the Paul Davis name. I later learned that Hillier Restoration, LLC appears to be the legal entity operating the Greater Houston franchise. I request that TDLR investigate the company, the individuals who performed or supervised the work, the applicable licensing records, and whether the work complied with Texas mold-remediation requirements and accepted professional standards.
My accidental water-loss event occurred on March 14, 2026, when water discharged from my hot-water heater and affected multiple areas of my home. Paul Davis began mitigation activities on approximately March 16, 2026. Additional demolition and mitigation activities occurred between approximately April 2 and April 7, 2026. Paul Davis installed approximately thirty air movers and three dehumidifiers, which operated inside my home for an extended period.
Despite the substantial amount of equipment used, moisture allegedly remained at excessively high levels. Readings reportedly continued to range between approximately 70 and 99 well into the mitigation period. The property did not appear to be drying properly, and concerns about moisture, mold, contamination, and the adequacy of the mitigation remained unresolved approximately thirty-five days after the loss. I request an investigation into the company's drying logs, moisture maps, equipment calculations, daily monitoring records, psychrometric readings, photographs, employee notes, job-site records, and communications with my insurance company.
I am particularly concerned that Paul Davis failed to establish and maintain adequate containment. Numerous air movers were used while areas of the home were disturbed or demolished, yet I did not observe containment measures sufficient to prevent dust, debris, suspected mold particles, or other contaminants from traveling into unaffected portions of my home. Air movement without appropriate containment may have contributed to cross-contamination of rooms, clothing, furniture, and other personal property. I am requesting that TDLR determine whether containment, negative air pressure, filtration, personal protective equipment, and disposal procedures were required and properly used.
There were also reported scheduling failures and periods when Paul Davis personnel did not appear as expected. During a critical portion of the approximately ten-day mitigation period, there were three alleged no-shows or missed visits. This raised concerns about whether the equipment and moisture conditions were being properly monitored. I request verification of who entered my property each day, the time spent onsite, what readings were taken, and whether licensed supervision was continuously provided when required.
I further allege that equipment may have been removed prematurely while moisture and contamination concerns remained. I did not believe the property had reached a safe, dry, or properly remediated condition when portions of the work ended. Mold was subsequently identified, and a mold professional reported that mold conditions resulted from the original accidental water discharge. I am concerned that inadequate drying, delayed identification of remaining moisture, insufficient demolition, and the absence of effective containment allowed the condition to worsen.
The demolition and mitigation activities also allegedly caused or contributed to additional property damage. My concerns include damage to flooring by Paul Davis, failure to address water-affected ceilings and walls adequately, insufficient attention to areas where water traveled through light fixtures or electrical components, and an incomplete evaluation of concealed moisture. Ceramic tile later became loose or hollow-sounding, and carpet areas were affected. I request that the company's original scope, revised scope, photographs, estimates, demolition records, and communications concerning these conditions be reviewed.
I also dispute whether Paul Davis obtained proper authorization for all work performed. I recall authorizing equipment-related services, but I do not recall knowingly signing a complete work authorization approving every activity later attributed to me. I rejected DocuSign requests on two occasions, and I have concerns about an undated or q
