Consumer complaint: XXXX ( XXXX ) was hired by Bank of America ( BOA ) to secure the property located at, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MD XXXX after a tree fell on the home on XXXX. Safeguard states they placed a lock box on the house on XX/XX/XXXX, the homeowner called to inquire about the XXXX 's role was on XX/XX/XXXX due to noticing changed locks, a lock box on the house and being unable to access the property. The homeowner 's were given a code to the lock box to access the home, that did not work. The homeowner 's had not abandoned or nor had BOA foreclosed on the property as XXXX has stated on numerous occasions, rather the house was deemed uninhabitable by both the State and County governments. 
Since XXXX has become involved with the property there have been numerous issues. Their refusal to listen to the homeowner 's requests, their repeated attempts to gain entry to the property, the various " repairs '' performed by their contractors and the theft of various. The homeowners have been in ongoing discussions with homeowners insurance company, as well as the BOA, placed insurance company filing the necessary claims for the damages to the home in hopes of having the repairs so that they could live in the home again The contractors hired by XXXX jeopardized all insurance claims by making " repairs '' to the home. Their " repairs '' hid the damages from the insurance inspectors and adjusters. This made it impossible for the homeowners to show the insurance company the true extent of the damages, skewing the estimate and hindering the adjuster 's ability to identify what true repairs were needed to make the property and homeowners whole again. The " repairs '' completed by XXXX 's contractors minimized the nature of the homeowner 's claims and severely minimized the value of the damages. 
The most detrimental occurrence was in XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX hired a company out of Minnesota, XXXX ( XXXX ), to make repairs to the home in order to secure the property and make it uninhabitable. Because XXXX was based out of Minnesota they contracted out to a local companydoing business as, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). The homeowners are not sure what repairs XXXX were asked to perform because several requests for a copy of the work order have been ignored. 
The work that was requested was either not done or done incorrectly. The photos provided to show completion of work are incomplete or very minimal and only show a small portion of the home, in order to give the appearance that the work had been completed. 
The homeowners have filed insurance claims against XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. but they were denied by the company as it does not cover inadequate repairs or negligent work. The liability claim filed by the homeowners was declined because there was not contract between the homeowners and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The homeowners filed a better business complaint in hopes to come to a resolution on the damages and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX has made several slanderous accusations against the homeowners in order to prove their innocence in these matters. They have said the home had been repossessed, that it was under foreclosure and that the homeowners we suit happy just trying to get a " free meal ''. 
The homeowners contacted XXXX on several occasions and informed them that they were in talks with the insurance companies and requested that XXXX stay off the property. XXXX was notified on several occasions that the property was not abandoned but rather could not be lived in due to the extent of the damages. The homeowners filed a legal claim with XXXX in regards to the damages caused by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and their cosmetic repairs, XXXX response was they only did what Bank of America told them to do and that the photos provided prove the work was done right. 

Company response: Company chooses not to provide a public response