Provider profile
SERVPRO of Hunt Valley and Towson East
Provider snapshot
What this listing says
Northern Baltimore County and Harford County homeowners dealing with water damage that has turned into a mold problem, backed by one of the largest SERVPRO franchise operations in the Mid-Atlantic.
Best for
- Homeowners in Hunt Valley, Towson, Timonium, or Lutherville who need mold remediation tied to a recent water event and want one company to handle drying, removal, and rebuild.
- Commercial property managers who need a restoration company that can scale up crews quickly for large losses.
- Buyers who want their belongings packed out, stored, and cleaned off-site during remediation rather than left in the work zone.
- Harford County residents in Bel Air, Aberdeen, or Havre de Grace who need a restoration company that also handles reconstruction after mold removal.
About this company
SERVPRO of Hunt Valley and Towson East operates out of Sparks, Maryland, covering northern Baltimore County and Harford County. Jim and Trish Wall opened this franchise in May 2009 and have grown it into one of the top-20 ranked locations out of more than 1,700 SERVPRO franchises nationwide. Mold remediation is one piece of a full restoration operation that also handles water damage, fire damage, storm cleanup, and reconstruction.
The mold side of the business follows the standard SERVPRO remediation process: containment, air filtration with HEPA vacuums and air scrubbers, antimicrobial treatment, removal of damaged materials like drywall and carpet, then rebuild. They also offer contents packout and storage at their own facility, which means your belongings get inventoried and moved off-site during the work. Media blasting for mold, fire, and stain removal is a less common capability they list.
The Walls also own SERVPRO franchises in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Chantilly, Virginia, forming what they call "Team Wall." That multi-franchise footprint gives them access to additional crews for catastrophic or large-scale events. They run 24/7 emergency response for both residential and commercial properties.
4.9 stars across 823 Google reviews is genuinely unusual volume and quality for a restoration company. Most of the review volume comes from water damage work, but multiple reviewers specifically mention mold remediation jobs with positive outcomes in basements throughout the Hunt Valley, Lutherville, and Timonium areas.
Services
Service area
Headquartered in Sparks, Maryland (15 Loveton Circle). Covers northern Baltimore County including Hunt Valley, Towson, Cockeysville, Timonium, Lutherville, Ruxton, Roland Park, Rodgers Forge, Hampton, Jacksonville, and Parkton. Also serves Harford County including Bel Air, Aberdeen, Havre de Grace, Forest Hill, Abingdon, Edgewood, and Joppatowne.
Review consensus
Labon and Jose are the most frequently named pair in reviews, appearing together in more than a dozen recent 5-star posts. Reviewers consistently praise them for arriving on time, explaining each step of the mitigation process, and answering questions patiently. Alex draws similar praise for mold and water mitigation work, with reviewers noting he texts ahead with arrival updates and walks through the full remediation scope. Josh Lizarraga leads the reconstruction side and gets repeated mentions for quality finish work and clear communication. Sulma Morales, Mauricio, and Douglas handle contents cleaning and packout, with one reviewer calling Sulma out by name as someone to request. Jaime gets praise for basement water cleanup work and willingness to explain the process. Blayne Cianci is named for quick response on emergency pipe bursts. Shannon draws praise for educating homeowners on the remediation steps. Jess Roberts manages projects and multiple reviewers credit her for follow-up and coordination. The overall theme across positives is speed of response, willingness to explain the process, and respectful treatment of the home.
6 found across 823 total reviews at 4.9★. Two reviewers describe the same core problem: the company declared the space dry and removed drying equipment, but moisture returned within weeks. Moshe (58-review Local Guide) details an 8-day drying cycle after a broken pipe, followed by three weeks of musty smell before the company returned and found the space was still wet, requiring a second 9-day round of equipment. Jill describes a similar sequence where reports claimed everything was "completely dry" when it was not, and the company tried to charge again for a second round. The owner's response to Jill cites IICRC standards and a Master Water Restorer's sign-off, calling it a "new and separate water event" rather than a continuation. The disagreement on that point is unresolved. Bran describes a devastating fire-loss experience where billing exceeded expectations by tens of thousands of dollars, the company deposited an insurance check without all required signatures, and held belongings during a billing dispute. This reviewer reports the owner Jim promised resolution but communication stopped. Greg paid $250 expecting a mold inspection with drywall removal and sampling but received only a visual check and a quote. Ian paid for mold remediation and says the job was called finished with mold still visibly present, then could not get the rebuild team scheduled. Dorothea was turned away because the company required a sump pump replacement before they would begin work. Rick Lewis (2-star, Local Guide) describes subpar trim work and cabinet replacement issues during reconstruction.
The negative reviews cluster around two structural issues. First, the handoff between mitigation and reconstruction teams creates gaps: multiple reviewers describe being stuck between a remediation crew that says their part is done and a rebuild crew that has not been scheduled. Second, on disputed work, the owner responses follow a near-identical template ("We appreciate the review... please contact us") without engaging with the specific complaint. The one exception is Jill's review, where the owner cited IICRC standards and a Master Water Restorer to dispute the claim. The 86% owner response rate signals active reputation management, but the template quality undermines its value.
Labon (mitigation lead -- consistently positive). Jose (mitigation team -- consistently positive). Alex (mitigation/mold -- consistently positive). Josh Lizarraga (reconstruction lead -- consistently positive). Jaime (water cleanup -- positive). Blayne Cianci (emergency response -- positive). Sulma Morales (contents cleaning -- consistently positive). Mauricio (contents cleaning -- positive). Douglas (contents cleaning -- positive). Shannon (mitigation -- positive). Jess/Jessica Roberts (project manager -- positive). Brad (reconstruction -- positive). Kevin (reconstruction/packout -- positive). Reynel/Raynel (reconstruction -- positive). Leif O'Kelley (renovation lead -- positive). Carlos (unspecified -- positive). Darren (remediation -- positive). Eric (remediation -- positive). Delight (team lead -- positive). Terry (team member -- positive). Keon (team member -- positive). Diego (mitigation -- positive). Amanda (reconstruction -- positive). Louis (reconstruction -- positive). Brian (mitigation -- positive). Matty (mitigation -- positive). Hosea (mitigation -- positive). David Wood (estimator -- positive). Brandon Tomlinson (referenced in owner response email -- manager/contact).
For standard water-to-mold jobs in northern Baltimore County, the crew quality is strong and the 4.9-star volume backs that up. Ask specifically for Labon's team or Alex for mitigation work, and Josh for reconstruction. Get moisture readings documented in writing before they pull equipment, and confirm in advance what any inspection fee covers and whether it includes sampling.
Keep in mind
- Multiple recent 1-star reviews describe disputes over whether walls and floors were actually dry when the company said they were. Two reviewers report the company pulled drying equipment prematurely, leading to further moisture problems weeks later.
- One reviewer paid $250 for what he expected would be a mold inspection with sampling but received only a visual check and a moisture reading. The company treated the fee as a service call charge, not a mold-specific inspection. Clarify exactly what the inspection includes before agreeing to the fee.
- On large-loss jobs (fire or major water damage), billing disputes have been severe. One reviewer describes contested charges exceeding $50,000 for cleaning, disagreements over insurance check handling, and months of delayed reconstruction. The company responds to most negatives but the responses are largely templated rather than addressing specifics.
- This is a franchise operation, so the crew you get depends on scheduling and availability. Review the specific team members assigned to your job and confirm their role in the scope of work.