Sign in

Alberene Soapstone Company

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Alberene Soapstone Company? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Alberene Soapstone Company

Alberene Soapstone Company Reviews (1)

Hello,
125);"> 
We received a copy of this online complaint in the mail yesterday Monday July 18, 2016.
 
Here is a brief explanation of the chain of events between Mr. [redacted] and our Sales Representative Doug A[redacted]:
 
·         March 10 : 1st phone call between Mr. Doug A[redacted] and Mr. [redacted]
·         March 10 : Mr. Doug A[redacted] sent a follow-up e-mail quoting 12 pieces total at $537.50 + crating at $50 + freight at $250 for a total of $837.50
a.       Mr. [redacted] sent the credit card authorization form on the same day
·         March 11 : Mr. [redacted]  contacted us back and asked for modifications to go from 8’’ wide pieces to 6’’ wide pieces and then asked for less material
·         March 11 : Mr. Doug A[redacted] resubmitted a new price for 2 options corresponding to the new needs:
a.       7 larger pieces for $1,000 ($575 for material, $75 for crating and $350 for shipping)
b.      12 larger pieces for $775 ($475 for material, $50 for crating and $250 for shipping)
·         March 11 : Mr. [redacted]  acknowledged and confirmed he would go for longer pieces (i.e. the $1,000 option) ; see details below
a.       (4) pieces of 68 1/2" L x 6" W x 1 1/8" T at $105 each
b.      (1) piece of  68 3/4" L x 6" W x 1 1/8" T at $105
c.       (2) pieces of 17 1/2" L x 4 1/2" W x 1 1/8" T  at $25 each 
d.      Crating at $75
e.      Shipping at $350
f.        Totaling $1,000
·         April 14 : Mr. [redacted]  contacted us to say the measurements were “perfect” (sic.) but complained about
a.       The thickness not being exactly 1 1/8’’
b.      The pieces being unfinished (i.e. sawn finish)
c.       Took this opportunity to also change his mind on the length he initially requested on 4 pieces from 68 1/2" to 68 3/4"
 
Note:
 
-          The Marble Institute of America’s established dimensional tolerances are ±1/8’’ for the requested thickness (see attached document)
-          No finish was initially quoted in the price nor asked for by Mr. [redacted]
-          Conclusion : this order had been shipped and delivered in less than 25 calendar days according to the industry established standards (MIA : Marble Institute of America) and precisely in line with the approved estimate sent by e-mail onMarch 11.
 
 
·         April 16 : Mr. [redacted]  replied indicating that he could work with thicknesses of 1 1/16" to (but not over) 1 1/8" despite his initial request of 1 1/8", thus ignoring the concept of tolerances
·         April 19 : Mr. Doug A[redacted] sent an e-mail to our production team on the floor to produce replacement pieces without advising his management of the situation. He had the slabs for the replacement pieces cut on the same day in the Schuyler, VA plant and shipped over to a fabricator.
·         April 19 : Mr. [redacted]  requested to drive to Schuyler, VA and pick up the order on April 25
·         April 27 : Mr. [redacted]  reached out to get another status update
a.       Mr. Doug A[redacted] replied on the same day that he would check with the fabricator who was working on the replacement pieces.
·         May 7 : Mr. [redacted]  then wrote he was cancelling the order and would inform the Revdex.com stating the following as being the base of his complaint:
a.       Wrong thickness
b.      Unfinished material
c.       Lack of communication
d.      Took this opportunity to indicate he had been in the business for 35 years
 
Reminder:
 
-          The thicknesses on the initially delivered material were adequate.
-          Unfinished material is what had been priced to Mr. [redacted]  
-          Being in the business for 35 years should warrant the plaintiff full knowledge of construction standards, including but not limited to tolerances in the utilized materials.
 
 
·         May 7: Mr. Doug A[redacted] replied that he was trying to get the order re-made and reminded  Mr. [redacted]  one more time that the tolerances were well within industry standards. Mr. Doug A[redacted] also indicated that he had contacted the fabricator every day of that week regarding his order.
·         May 10:
a.       Mr. [redacted]  contacted  Mr. Doug A[redacted]  to let him know the pieces he did receive were 1 3/8".
                                        ... [redacted]  was verbally asked by Mr. Doug A[redacted]  to provide evidence of this defect as our quality control operator indicated the thickness was precisely 1 3/16’’, thus once more within industry tolerances. Mr. [redacted]  never did send such evidence.
b.      Mr. [redacted]  sent a separate e-mail that same day asking to get the 10 pieces he wanted within 10 days or a full refund
 
Note: Mr. [redacted]  asked for 10 pieces when his order was for 7 pieces
 
·         May 13 : Mr. [redacted]  wrote back complaining about Mr. Doug A[redacted]’s silence
a.       Mr. Doug A[redacted] replied he had to control the work at his fabricator’s and revert back with a decision on whether he would  ship the order upon Mr. [redacted] ’s approval or issue a full refund
b.      Mr. Doug A[redacted] added later during the day that the thickness was correct at 1 1/8" and that the replacement pieces would ship on May 16
c.       Mr. [redacted]  acknowledged and asked what glue he had to use to bond the material to wood and how he was supposed to finish the edges where a cut would be made ; thus  indicating a rather limited knowledge of the material he wanted to use.
·         May 18 : Mr. [redacted]  wrote and sent photos of him refusing to take delivery of the pieces : pieces were badly chipped and shipment was partial (5 pieces)
a.       Mr. Doug A[redacted] took this opportunity to offer to remake the order a third time or refund the Mr. [redacted] ; again without advising his management of the situation
·         May 19 : Mr. [redacted]  replied he wanted us to go ahead and remake the order
a.       Mr. Doug A[redacted] acknowledged on May 20
·         June 20: Mr. [redacted]  wrote to say he reluctantly accepted delivery of six pieces for the 3rd replacement order when 7 pieces were ordered.
·         June 21 : Mr. [redacted]  wrote back angrily he noticed that “five pieces were all two pieces seamed together made from cultured garbage […] and that he expected his full refund immediately”
a.       Mr. Doug A[redacted] replied the same day Mr. Doug A[redacted] did not understand what Mr. [redacted]  did mean by “seamed together”
b.      Mr. Bjorn Sorensen, the Schuyler Plant foreman, copied on the e-mail, stated he did not understand either and confirmed the right number of pieces were shipped.
·         June 22 : Mr. [redacted]  wrote back to apologize : “My apologies first!  When I saw this "seam" it looked to be man made.  I saw that it was within a dark inclusion.  All of the pieces had the same coloring” (sic.)
a.       Confirming again a rather limited knowledge of the material he wanted to use.
·         July 1 : Mr. [redacted]  wrote back asking for a missing piece. Asked for a credit back to his account for the shipping fee and said he would be satisfied to pay $600 for the order.
a.       This message was transferred to the the Revdex.com as this appears in the Customer’s Statement of the Problem.
·         July 12 : Mr. [redacted]  wrote he had not heard from Mr. Doug A[redacted] since his last e-mail and was missing one piece. Mr. [redacted]  stated he was filing with the Revdex.com the same day
 
In order to summarize :
 
-          Our company has been paid $950 by Mr. [redacted]  for an order which was quoted at $1,000, leaving $50 unpaid.
-          Our company fully delivered in 25 calendar days the order within industry standards with the quantities and dimensions indicated in the March 11 e-mail ; e-mail that Mr. [redacted] received and acknowledged.
-          Starting April 14, Mr. [redacted] did overwhelmingly stressed Mr. Doug A[redacted] to the point he made unapproved decisions that were far beyond his rights and prerogatives within the company, consequently incurring additional expenses exceeding $1,150 to date without counting the additional labor cost involved. Decisions that still left Mr. [redacted] unsatisfied to the point he now still disputes $350.
 
In order to settle this case # [redacted], our company is ready to retribute the Desired Settlement indicated in the Complaint Letter we did receive (i.e. $350). We will not deduct from this amount the $50 that were left unpaid. We will not deliver an additional piece that was reported as missing by Mr. [redacted] as this was delivered in the very first shipment.
I hereby state that this proposed settlement does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of our Company, but is made solely in order to compromise a disputed claim for the purpose of avoiding litigation.
 
In the event you would need further information, do not hesitate to contact me via e-mail.
 
Best regards,
 
Cedric A[redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of Alberene Soapstone Company

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Alberene Soapstone Company Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Add contact information for Alberene Soapstone Company

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated