Vanovers Hardwood Floorworks Co Inc
Added on -, by Reviewer740397
Review: While meeting with the sales representative of the flooring company, I was not advised that there were different types of sealants available for application to my wooden floors after refinishing. I have dogs and was interested in the strongest protection available. The water based sealant that Vanover's applied to my floors has proved insufficient in providing any type of protections. Stains began to appear under area rugs within three months of the refinishing. This is a problem that I had never encountered in the 24 years that I have lived in my house and have routinely had dogs who sometimes wet the area rugs that are laid over my floors. Actually, even though the rugs had routinely gotten wet with pet urine for all those years, the floors underneath were in better condition than the surrounding floors when the rugs were taken up. There was less wear and tear on the covered areas and pet urine stains never developed. I understand that pet urine is abrasive to wood floors and I am not saying that stains could not eventually develop but, since I had never encountered the problem before, I was surprised (shocked actually) that, after spending thousands of dollars, I would run into this problem in so short a time. I contend that the company's representative did not inform me that there were stronger sealants available, such as oil based sealants, and that these type of sealants can also be applied numerous times to increase the protection of my floors .If I had been told that the sealant Vanover's applies would result in damage to my floors from pet urine developing so quickly, I doubt that I would have hired them. I was not given the opportunity to opt for a stronger sealant (for which I would gladly have paid extra). I was also told that my floors would be warranted for "ten years"- warranted against what, I do not know. I find it interesting that the builder grade sealant that was originally applied to my floors when the house was built was a much better product than that which Vanover's replaced it with. I have been treated in a dismissive manner by the owner and he has been unresponsive to my requests for a home inspection.
I had to call the company four times before getting any feedback from them and have been waiting two more weeks for a call to arrange a visit to evaluate the problem. The owner told me that 'someone' would be calling me last week. In a nutshell, I feel that I was not given all the available options for protecting the finish on my floors and that I have been treated in a dismissive and unprofessional manner since advising them of the problem with my floorsDesired Settlement: First of all, I should be contacted promptly and an in home inspection should be completed in a timely manner. Also, I would like an explanation as to why I did not receive complete information about the different types of sealants available and the varying types of protection these sealants provide. Also, why was I told my floors were 'warranted for ten years' when obviously they are not. There were no caveats attached to this warranty. As an aside, the salesman who had come to my house was no longer employed by Vanover's within a two month time period. Don't know why. I do not feel like I want to contribute one more cent to Vanover's since I was not made aware of all my product options and I have not been treated by them in a respectful and professional manner.
04 October 2013
Better Business Bureau 1411 K St. NW, 10th Floor Wash.,
Re: Attached / ****** ****
Please be advised that Vanover's has met with ***. ****** **** on two occasions over this matter and on our last attempt ***. **** canceled the appointment.
Please see our standard warranty (attached). Note that we cannot warranty against pet urine stains.
Please note that Vanover's offered all types of finishes and no finish can guard against pet urine.
Upon our inspection, ***. **** explained that she routinely lets the pets urinate on the carpets and that she cleans the carpets periodically.
Upon trying to explain that this was not a good idea, ***. **** became frustrated.
I will have my office contact her again as requested.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
I am rejecting this response because **. Vanover's response contains numerous mis-characterizations and misstatements, including:
1. Response to paragraph (1):
First, I NEVER cancelled an appointment with Vanovers. After my initial complaint to Vanovers, a female employee of Vanovers (I believe her name is ****) came to my home to inspect the problems on August 14, 2013; in this meeting, I was told that the problems would be remedied and that **. Vanover would contact me to discuss remedies. I did not hear from anyone at Vanovers for more than three (3) weeks; instead, I had to call Vanovers to find out what was going on. On this call, I did happen to speak directly with **. Vanover and he told me that I had to be "patient," never mentioning anything about the female employees visit to my home, and that he would give my ticket to someone who would then contact me for another inspection. I did not hear from anyone at Vanovers until an individual named **** called me on September 19, 2013. **** made an appointment for September 20, 2013. Another individual (I cannot recall his name) came to this scheduled appointment at 2:30 on September 20, 2013. No one has been in touch with me since this meeting on September 20, 2013.
To the contrary, Mr. Vanover has been the one to not return my phone calls and/or to follow-up when promised.
2. Response to paragraph (2):
I was told about a warranty by the sales associate, **. ******* *. ********* (who sold me the refinishing); however, I never, at any time, received a copy of the warranty provided by Mr. Vanover in his response.
3. Response to paragraph (3):
When the sale associate, **. ******* *. *********, came to my home on January 24, 2013, he did NOT inform or offer me "all types of finishes," as Mr. Vanover states. Rather, **. ********* brushed off the subject telling me that "Urethane Water base" was a sufficient sealant and that, in any event, Vanover would come back and fix anything that was wrong under the warranty. He did not inspect my floors to see that the sealant I previously had was oil based (as I was informed on September 20, 2013). Pet stains were not discussed because I have NEVER had pet stains prior to having my floors refinished by Vanovers.
I now understand the pet stains can cause damage; however, prior to this refinishing, I NEVER experienced pet stains. **. ********* did not say the sealant would not protect against pet stains or that they were excluded from the warranty. I understand that **. ********* is no longer employed by Vanovers.
4. Response to paragraph (4):
Yes, my dogs have urinated on my rugs when they have had accidents; however, I do not regularly let my pets urinate on the floors as Mr. Vanover states. I am offended by Mr. Vanover's dismissive, unprofessional, demeaning attitude.
My frustration comes not from the fact that Mr. Vanover tried "to explain this was not a good idea," but rather from the fact that I was not presented all of my options by **. ********* and that I spent a large sum of money only to experience a problem I had never encountered before (i.e., pet stains). Mr. Vanover told me that I just did not see the pet stains before this refinishing; again, he is wrong. The floors that I have not had refinished (the original floors from 24
years ago) do NOT have pet stains; in fact, Vanover's female employee
agreed on August 14, 2013 that there are NO stains on these original floors. Only upon the refinishing do I have pet stains.
Last, and importantly, the meeting I had September 20, 2013 was the
only helpful meeting I have had in this whole process. This man was very
professional and knowledgeable. He stated that there must have been
some sort of failure in communication with the initial salesman, **.
******* *. ********* (date: January 24, 2013) because **. *********
failed to inform me of my various options for sealants and the impact of the
various options. I was further informed that I have an
oil based finish on my original floors, not a water based finish (like
the one **. ********* said was the correct finish for my needs). In fact, I was told in this meeting that the sealant I have on my original floors is no longer available and provides greater protection than anything available now. If I had known this information then, I would have been able to make an informed decision (and would have held off refinishing my floors until a time closer to the time I listed my home for sale). As it was, however, I was not able to make an informed decision and here I find myself.
Resolution: To resolve this matter, I propose that Vanovers come and apply the strongest oil-based sealant available, as I would have originally chosen (even if it came at a greater expense) if I had been better informed.
Answer to rebuttal from Customer. First. Vanover's appreciates all Customers and always honors our warranty. I cannot find where Vanover's did anything wrong. There is no urethane that can protect against pet urine that saturates into carpets. This is evidenced on the NOFMA web site. National Oak Mills Manufactures Assoc. Vanover's offers Oil based urethane and water base urethane to our Customers. Because of VOC Federal requirements, Lacquer is not available. In Final ...... to possibly resolve this matter. Vanover's will offer to re coat the Hardwood in this home at no charge with one coat of urethane per the Customers choice. ****** Vanover