Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/05/31) */
Mr and Mrs*** did contract with us to rebuild a retaining wall at their homeThey were adamant that we use the same material that was currently thereSeveral other companies had come out and refused to build with the current material but due
to cost, the ***'s requested the previous material was usedIt was written into their contract that aside from new gravel and piping, we would use the old material and there would be a warranty on workmanship but not on material
Several days after work was complete, the homeowner contacted us and stated that the wall had begun to tiltWe immediately went out to look over the issue and discovered it was due to the deadmens inability to hold the rebar, which is a material issueWe would be willing to replace the wall at my cost using brand new materialUpon being informed of this, the ***'s asked that the wall be taken down and rebuilt using new material but at no additional costWe had explained our previous agreement to them but that wasn't satisfactory to them and they stated they would sue me
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/06/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We shall respond point by pointMr P*** understood from the outset that we hoped to reuse the railroad ties that were in place and he indicated that would not be a problemIn fact, he stated Exteriors had extensive experience in rebuilding railroad tie walls such as thisWe agreed verbally he would not reinstall unusable tiesTherefore, the contract includes a provision for him to procure and install additional ties at $eachWe were charged for new ties
Next, regarding the deadmen and his suggestion that the materials used to construct the deadmen failed to hold the rebar: the wall and deadmen toppled as one solid unitThe material held together fineWe contend the inadequate deadmen design, combined with poorly tamped backfill, was insufficientIn addition, we feel the use of perforated pipe behind the wall was a design flaw and clearly contributed to the failure
Mr P*** claims he offered to replace the wall using new material at no additional labor costAt no time did we have this conversation nor did we receive any such electronic communicationThe last communication we had from him was on 4/12/when he said Al, an employee or contractor, would come out to look at the situationUnfortunately, there has been no communication with Mr P*** or any representative of Exteriors since that date(We're guessing Al knew the job was a disaster.)
At no time have we threatened to file suitWe did state in text messages and US Mail, including certified mail, we need a resolution and we hoped it could be an amiable oneWe've received no response
The contract states year warrantyThe wall stood days
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2016/06/28) */
***
In response to the rebuttal from *** and *** *** in a point by point fashion as wellI did agree to replace any ties that the homeowner wanted replacedHowever, due to cost, they opted only to replace tiesDue to the cost issue, that was left up to the homeownerExteriors has many satisfied customers that we have rebuilt or built retaining walls for and that is how we have kept such an excellent track record
The deadmen (of them) had cracked and given way at the time of the inspection of the lean in the wallOnce the wall began to lean, the weight of the dirt behind the wall was enough to force the wall downHad the deadmen originally held, the wall would not have tilted and the weight of the dirt would not have been on itJust because the other deadmen stayed with the wall does not mean there was not a failure in the others that contributed to the fallThe piping behind the wall was perforated to allow any excess water that got behind the wall to drainIt is common practice to do so and up to code to do soThe dirt under and behind the wall was tamped both mechanically and manuallyWe do still feel that the failure of the wall was due to material issues, not an installation issue
Our offer (which has been presented before) still stands to replace the wall with new material at no labor costIf the ***'s would like to take us up on this we can have the project completed within weeks from todayI would like this situation resolved amicably and would be happy to work with them on replacement at just the material cost
Thanks,
Tim P***
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 20, 2016/07/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As to materials, in all of our preliminary conversations prior to an agreement, Mr P*** repeatedly indicated he felt the vast majority of the ties would be reusableThe contract contains no limits on how many replacement ties might be requiredAfter the project began we were never consulted or involved in decisions as to which ties were unusable or how many new ties would be neededIt was entirely his decision and he decided to use only new tiesMr P***'s rebuttals on this subject have been, at best, misleading
Mr P*** states: "...there would be a warranty on workmanship but not on material." Even if that were the case, our contention from the start is that the failure is due to inadequate dead man design and execution, combined with the decision to use perforated pipe to drain a downspout that services a large roofOur opinion on both of these points has been verified by every contractor we've consulted in our efforts to decide how to proceedThis points to workmanship
As to his "offer to replace at his cost", he never presented that offer to us, in any manner, prior to his rebuttal to the Revdex.com on 5/31/Since the previously documented text exchange with Dave on 4/12/16, in which Mr P*** indicated Al would come to inspect the situation, we have not heard from him or anyone else representing Exteriors in any way, whatsoever
And by the way, after all we've been through, why would any reasonable homeowner choose that path again?
We thank the Revdex.com for your role up to this point and will keep you informed of any further developments
We currently do not have a campaign running with Groupon and have not received any funds from Mr ***We previously had run a campaign with them but that campaign was to have ended before the point at which Mr *** purchased hisGroupon only notified us this past Friday 5/of the
purchase issueI have reached out to Groupon, who agreed to refund back his payment to themI also have reached out to Mr *** times and have offered to complete the shingle replacement ( which the Groupon was to be for) at no cost to him and as of this time he has failed to take us up on the offerWe are still willing to complete this service at no cost to Mr *** due to his inconvenienceI have attached a copy of my correspondences with Mr *** and our offer to him.Thabk you,Timothy P*** Exteriors
Homeowner has a balance that has not been paid. Warranty work is not completed until the original bill has been paid. Additional capping work was even completed at homeowners request before original bill was paid. After project was completed, homeowner then proceeded to make multiple claims of...
'issues',including that we had destroyed his driveway. As soon as one 'issue' was fixed, homeowner would come up with another. We made a total of 9 separate trips to residence, including several where homeowner was supposed to have made payments but did not have a check. All issues were resolved including the driveway issue, which had to be proven was not something we caused by measuring tire treads and patterns and determining that the tread that made markings was an off road, 14" tire whereas we have 7" on road tires on our vehicles. After all 'issues' that homeowner sought discounts for were resolved, homeowner still asked for discount. He said money was tight. Homeowner was told that for the additional work beyond the contracted work I would leave to his discretion but that typically $250 was charged for such work. Homeowner then not only opted to not compensate at all for additional work but also shorted us on the original bill. If there are issues with roof, those issues will be addressed immediately upon initial contract being paid in full. Thank you,Tim P[redacted] 330 Exteriors
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/05/31) */
Mr and Mrs*** did contract with us to rebuild a retaining wall at their homeThey were adamant that we use the same material that was currently thereSeveral other companies had come out and refused to build with the current material but due
to cost, the ***'s requested the previous material was usedIt was written into their contract that aside from new gravel and piping, we would use the old material and there would be a warranty on workmanship but not on material
Several days after work was complete, the homeowner contacted us and stated that the wall had begun to tiltWe immediately went out to look over the issue and discovered it was due to the deadmens inability to hold the rebar, which is a material issueWe would be willing to replace the wall at my cost using brand new materialUpon being informed of this, the ***'s asked that the wall be taken down and rebuilt using new material but at no additional costWe had explained our previous agreement to them but that wasn't satisfactory to them and they stated they would sue me
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2016/06/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We shall respond point by pointMr P*** understood from the outset that we hoped to reuse the railroad ties that were in place and he indicated that would not be a problemIn fact, he stated Exteriors had extensive experience in rebuilding railroad tie walls such as thisWe agreed verbally he would not reinstall unusable tiesTherefore, the contract includes a provision for him to procure and install additional ties at $eachWe were charged for new ties
Next, regarding the deadmen and his suggestion that the materials used to construct the deadmen failed to hold the rebar: the wall and deadmen toppled as one solid unitThe material held together fineWe contend the inadequate deadmen design, combined with poorly tamped backfill, was insufficientIn addition, we feel the use of perforated pipe behind the wall was a design flaw and clearly contributed to the failure
Mr P*** claims he offered to replace the wall using new material at no additional labor costAt no time did we have this conversation nor did we receive any such electronic communicationThe last communication we had from him was on 4/12/when he said Al, an employee or contractor, would come out to look at the situationUnfortunately, there has been no communication with Mr P*** or any representative of Exteriors since that date(We're guessing Al knew the job was a disaster.)
At no time have we threatened to file suitWe did state in text messages and US Mail, including certified mail, we need a resolution and we hoped it could be an amiable oneWe've received no response
The contract states year warrantyThe wall stood days
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2016/06/28) */
***
In response to the rebuttal from *** and *** *** in a point by point fashion as wellI did agree to replace any ties that the homeowner wanted replacedHowever, due to cost, they opted only to replace tiesDue to the cost issue, that was left up to the homeownerExteriors has many satisfied customers that we have rebuilt or built retaining walls for and that is how we have kept such an excellent track record
The deadmen (of them) had cracked and given way at the time of the inspection of the lean in the wallOnce the wall began to lean, the weight of the dirt behind the wall was enough to force the wall downHad the deadmen originally held, the wall would not have tilted and the weight of the dirt would not have been on itJust because the other deadmen stayed with the wall does not mean there was not a failure in the others that contributed to the fallThe piping behind the wall was perforated to allow any excess water that got behind the wall to drainIt is common practice to do so and up to code to do soThe dirt under and behind the wall was tamped both mechanically and manuallyWe do still feel that the failure of the wall was due to material issues, not an installation issue
Our offer (which has been presented before) still stands to replace the wall with new material at no labor costIf the ***'s would like to take us up on this we can have the project completed within weeks from todayI would like this situation resolved amicably and would be happy to work with them on replacement at just the material cost
Thanks,
Tim P***
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 20, 2016/07/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As to materials, in all of our preliminary conversations prior to an agreement, Mr P*** repeatedly indicated he felt the vast majority of the ties would be reusableThe contract contains no limits on how many replacement ties might be requiredAfter the project began we were never consulted or involved in decisions as to which ties were unusable or how many new ties would be neededIt was entirely his decision and he decided to use only new tiesMr P***'s rebuttals on this subject have been, at best, misleading
Mr P*** states: "...there would be a warranty on workmanship but not on material." Even if that were the case, our contention from the start is that the failure is due to inadequate dead man design and execution, combined with the decision to use perforated pipe to drain a downspout that services a large roofOur opinion on both of these points has been verified by every contractor we've consulted in our efforts to decide how to proceedThis points to workmanship
As to his "offer to replace at his cost", he never presented that offer to us, in any manner, prior to his rebuttal to the Revdex.com on 5/31/Since the previously documented text exchange with Dave on 4/12/16, in which Mr P*** indicated Al would come to inspect the situation, we have not heard from him or anyone else representing Exteriors in any way, whatsoever
And by the way, after all we've been through, why would any reasonable homeowner choose that path again?
We thank the Revdex.com for your role up to this point and will keep you informed of any further developments
We currently do not have a campaign running with Groupon and have not received any funds from Mr ***We previously had run a campaign with them but that campaign was to have ended before the point at which Mr *** purchased hisGroupon only notified us this past Friday 5/of the
purchase issueI have reached out to Groupon, who agreed to refund back his payment to themI also have reached out to Mr *** times and have offered to complete the shingle replacement ( which the Groupon was to be for) at no cost to him and as of this time he has failed to take us up on the offerWe are still willing to complete this service at no cost to Mr *** due to his inconvenienceI have attached a copy of my correspondences with Mr *** and our offer to him.Thabk you,Timothy P*** Exteriors
Homeowner has a balance that has not been paid. Warranty work is not completed until the original bill has been paid. Additional capping work was even completed at homeowners request before original bill was paid. After project was completed, homeowner then proceeded to make multiple claims of...
'issues',including that we had destroyed his driveway. As soon as one 'issue' was fixed, homeowner would come up with another. We made a total of 9 separate trips to residence, including several where homeowner was supposed to have made payments but did not have a check. All issues were resolved including the driveway issue, which had to be proven was not something we caused by measuring tire treads and patterns and determining that the tread that made markings was an off road, 14" tire whereas we have 7" on road tires on our vehicles. After all 'issues' that homeowner sought discounts for were resolved, homeowner still asked for discount. He said money was tight. Homeowner was told that for the additional work beyond the contracted work I would leave to his discretion but that typically $250 was charged for such work. Homeowner then not only opted to not compensate at all for additional work but also shorted us on the original bill. If there are issues with roof, those issues will be addressed immediately upon initial contract being paid in full. Thank you,Tim P[redacted] 330 Exteriors