Why Your Remediation Company Should Not Do Your Mold Testing

The Question Nobody Likes to Answer

A remediation company calls you. They found water damage in your bathroom during a different job, and now they're offering to "test for mold while they're there."

Convenient, right?

Here's the problem: the person telling you that you need a $4,000 remediation project is the same person who will get paid $4,000 to do the work.

I'm not saying every remediation company inflates their findings. Most don't. But the structure is broken — and Oklahoma law agrees with me.

Oklahoma Law: It's Not Just Ethics — It's the Rule

Oklahoma Statutes §15-765.4 is pretty clear:

A person or entity that inspects houses for mold may not also perform the mold removal services on that same property.

That's not my opinion — it's literal state law. The legislators looked at the mold remediation industry and said, "We need to separate these functions to protect consumers."

The reason should be obvious. If someone benefits financially from finding a problem, you can't fully trust that they're giving you an unbiased assessment.

The $200 Exception (And What It Really Means)

There's one exception: if the total cost of both inspection and remediation doesn't exceed $200, the consumer can consent in writing to have the same person do both.

In practice? A $200 mold remediation barely exists. We're usually talking about projects that cost $2,000 to $15,000+. The exception is essentially a "de minimis" rule — for the kind of tiny problem where the risk of conflict is too small to matter.

For anything bigger, separation is required.

What the Industry Standards Say

It's not just Oklahoma. The IICRC S520 Standard for Professional Mold Remediation — the gold standard in the industry — explicitly addresses this:

• Defines a remediator performing their own assessment as a "conflict of interest"
• Calls this practice unethical
• Requires an Independent Environmental Professional (IEP) for pre-remediation assessment and post-remediation verification
• If the assessor is NOT independent from the remediator, it must be disclosed in writing as a deviation from the standard

Think about that last point. The industry's own standard says that if a remediation company does their own testing, they have to admit in writing that they're breaking protocol.

How many companies are actually doing that? In my experience: almost none.

What About "Separate Departments"?

I've heard this one before:

"Oh, we have a testing division and a remediation division. They operate completely independently."

Here's the reality: if both divisions pay salaries from the same company's bank account, they're not truly independent. The incentives are still aligned. A company that finds more mold on the testing side is a company that does more business on the remediation side.

Structural independence means actual separation — different businesses, different owners, no referral fees or kickbacks. Anything less is theater.

Why I Built TrueSight This Way

When I started TrueSight Environmental, I made a structural decision:

We don't do remediation. Period.

I can't upsell you on removal services. I can't benefit from your remediation project. My only job is to tell you what I find.

That's not because I'm more ethical than other inspectors. It's because I designed the business so that my financial incentives align with yours. You want an honest answer. I only get paid for honest answers. The structure removes the conflict instead of relying on my personal integrity.

What If You Were Already Tested by a Remediator?

If a remediation company already tested your home and found mold, you have options:

1. Get a second opinion. Have an independent inspector review the findings. Sometimes the original assessment is accurate — but verification is cheap compared to an unnecessary $8,000 remediation job.
2. Request the lab reports. Legitimate mold testing uses third-party laboratories. If the company can't produce actual lab data, that's a red flag.
3. Ask about the protocol. A proper mold inspection includes a written remediation protocol specifying what needs to be done and why. Vague estimates without documentation are concerning.

I've seen cases where a homeowner paid thousands for remediation of "mold problems" that were wildly overblown. I've also seen cases where the remediation company's assessment was completely accurate. The point isn't that all remediators are dishonest — it's that you should verify the findings independently before making a major financial decision.

This Is Why Post-Remediation Verification Matters Too

The conflict doesn't end after remediation. When the work is done, someone needs to verify it was done correctly — that's called post-remediation verification (PRV).

The same logic applies: if the remediation company is testing their own work, they have an incentive to say "everything's fine" even if it isn't. Their final payment usually depends on passing that verification.

IICRC S520 specifically requires that PRV be performed by an independent third party — not the same company that did the work. Third-party clearance testing protects both you and the remediator: you know the work was done right, and they have proof that they completed the job properly.

The Bottom Line

Asking your remediation company to test for mold is like asking your auto mechanic to decide whether you need a new car. They might give you an honest answer — but the structure doesn't encourage it.

Oklahoma law requires separation for a reason. Industry standards require separation for a reason. And I built TrueSight with separation baked into the business model for a reason.

If you need a mold inspection, work with someone who doesn't stand to gain from what they find.