Arbor Tech Services

Arbor Tech Services provided a written proposal for our client June after she met with our arboristThe proposal stated she would pay $($with a $discount) for the light clean out, clearance, and structure of back yard trees and to crown/side cut her Photinia for separation and
clearance from treesThe proposal was verbally accepted June The work was scheduled and completed July as the first job of the day per the client’s requestOur crew showed up on time, completed all of the proposed work in a timely fashion, and left for the next jobBefore leaving, our foreman approached the client who noted the work was acceptable and that she was happyA little while later, the client called the office of Arbor Tech Services and informed the office assistant the Redwoods were not treated, she felt there was not enough space between the Photinia and its neighboring tree, the Photinia was not “layered”, and complained the crew completed the job too quicklyNeither the Redwood treatment nor the “layering” of the Photinia was mentioned in the proposalDue to the fact that *** was out of town, the issue was unable to be clarified until Monday, July 11, when he returnedThe issue was discussed and *** called her with no response that weekThe client returned the call July and sent an email addressing her concerns, to which *** sent a reply with no responseDue to a computer issue on our side, the email never reached herAs soon as this issue was discovered, an email was sent to the client explaining the gap in communication and reiterated the solution *** had attempted to send a couple weeks priorVia email, we offered to send the crew back to the client’s home and re-address the Photinia or if she preferred, we would reduce her invoice further and accept $for the completed proposalAs our pricing is not based on the amount of time we spend at a job site, but rather the size and amount of work that needs to be completed, it is rather unfair to chastise our crew for being efficient workersThe significantly reduced price we are offering the client for the completed proposal is very fairA large percentage of our business comes from referrals and we make great efforts to accommodate our clientsIt seems this is one situation that is outside of our controlWith Respect, *** *** Owner/Arborist ***

It does not interest us to dispute hearsayIt is evident from the client’s response the work WAS completed; however the outcome of Photinia was different from her expectationsLack of communication due to unavoidable situations worsened the caseClient states in her original complaint: “They trimmed trees and trimmed some of the photinia bush.” The client then states in her second response: “The trees were cut nicely.” The proposal exactly states: B/Y fencline- Light clean out, clearance, and structure of treesClean Out generally refers to the removal of interior deadwood, suckers, and unwanted growthClearance and Structure are generally used to minimize laterals and other misaligned branches as well as creating a separation between branch and structure/sidewalk/boundary lineB/Y Crown/Side cut Photinia for separation and clearance from trees Crown reduction is used primarily to describe a method of pruning and can apply to the whole canopy or individual limbs Attached is a copy of the proposal with a breakdown of what it entailsIt was stated in our initial response that there was indeed a lapse in communicationIt states, “Due to a computer issue on our side, the email never reached herAs soon as this issue was discovered, an email was sent to the client explaining the gap in communication and reiterated the solution *** had attempted to send a couple of weeks prior.” There was never an issue receiving the clients email as she states we claimWe hate to be argumentative; however we refuse to allow these accusations to go unansweredOur job was completeAgain, we are willing to accept $for the completed proposal, which is $less than the initial proposed price With Respect, *** ***Owner/Arborist***

I am rejecting this response because:the job was NOT completed.  The following were NOT done per the proposal.1.  Little to no separation was made between trees and shrubs.2.  Deadwood, suckers, and unwanted growth were not addressed at all on the photinia. 3.  One shrub on B/Y fence line was not even touched.4.  Clean up was not done at all on the left part of B/Y fence line.  5.  My gardener had to clean it up.6.  [redacted] from Arbor Tech never came out to follow up to take a look at the work, so I don't know how he could possibly know the job was completed.  It appears that maybe 1/2 of the job was completed.  I also believe that the time and stress on my part as a customer is unacceptable.  A customer should never have to endure this unacceptable behavior from a business.All things considered, I believe I should only have to pay less than half due to the time and stress involved.  Complete lies have been told in his responses.  Communication on his part was almost non-existent.  A month went by before they got back to me.  Completely an unacceptable way to run a business.  I still don't even know where to send my payment.  Sincerely,[redacted]

Review: In late June an estimate was written by Arbor Tech Services to service my backyard for $750. It was agreed that my back fence line would be serviced including 3 trees, photinia bushes, and one other bush would be trimmed to give space in my yard between trees and bushes sine they had grown together. On July 6, 3 men came out from Arbor Tech and serviced my backyard for one hour and 15 minutes. They started at 8:00am and left at 9:15 a.m. They trimmed 2 of the trees and trimmed some of the photinia bush. They failed to trim enough to give any space between bushes and trees as was proposed. They completely ignored a redwood tree and another bush on the back wall. The photinia bush was supposed to be cut so that the beautiful tree next to it was visible. That was not done either. Basically about 1/2 the work was completed. As a result, I offered to pay $400 for the job that was done. The company took about one month to get back to me only say ask that we settle on paying them $550. I believe $400 is more than fair under the circumstances. Today is August 10th. The job was done on July 6th and they just got back to me today. NO follow up was done to check the job and how they did not do the job correctly. I have taken many pictures to show the job that was done and is evidence to prove that they did only a portion of what was proposed.Desired Settlement: I would like to pay the company $400 to settle this issue. Under the circumstances, I believe that is extremely fair. That seems like an easy resolution.

Business

Response:

Arbor Tech Services provided a written proposal for our client June 16 after she met with our arborist. The proposal stated she would pay $750 ($850 with a $100 discount) for the light clean out, clearance, and structure of 2 back yard trees and to crown/side cut her Photinia for separation and clearance from trees. The proposal was verbally accepted June 20. The work was scheduled and completed July 7 as the first job of the day per the client’s request. Our crew showed up on time, completed all of the proposed work in a timely fashion, and left for the next job. Before leaving, our foreman approached the client who noted the work was acceptable and that she was happy. A little while later, the client called the office of Arbor Tech Services and informed the office assistant the Redwoods were not treated, she felt there was not enough space between the Photinia and its neighboring tree, the Photinia was not “layered”, and complained the crew completed the job too quickly. Neither the Redwood treatment nor the “layering” of the Photinia was mentioned in the proposal. Due to the fact that [redacted] was out of town, the issue was unable to be clarified until Monday, July 11, when he returned. The issue was discussed and [redacted] called her with no response that week. The client returned the call July 19 and sent an email addressing her concerns, to which [redacted] sent a reply with no response. Due to a computer issue on our side, the email never reached her. As soon as this issue was discovered, an email was sent to the client explaining the gap in communication and reiterated the solution [redacted] had attempted to send a couple weeks prior. Via email, we offered to send the crew back to the client’s home and re-address the Photinia or if she preferred, we would reduce her invoice further and accept $550 for the completed proposal. As our pricing is not based on the amount of time we spend at a job site, but rather the size and amount of work that needs to be completed, it is rather unfair to chastise our crew for being efficient workers. The significantly reduced price we are offering the client for the completed proposal is very fair. A large percentage of our business comes from referrals and we make great efforts to accommodate our clients. It seems this is one situation that is outside of our control. With Respect, [redacted] Owner/Arborist [redacted]

Business

Response:

It does not interest us to dispute hearsay. It is evident from the client’s response the work WAS completed; however the outcome of Photinia was different from her expectations. Lack of communication due to unavoidable situations worsened the case. Client states in her original complaint: “They trimmed 2 trees and trimmed some of the photinia bush.” The client then states in her second response: “The 2 trees were cut nicely.” The proposal exactly states: B/Y fencline- Light clean out, clearance, and structure of 2 trees. Clean Out generally refers to the removal of interior deadwood, suckers, and unwanted growth. Clearance and Structure are generally used to minimize laterals and other misaligned branches as well as creating a separation between branch and structure/sidewalk/boundary line. B/Y Crown/Side cut Photinia for separation and clearance from trees Crown reduction is used primarily to describe a method of pruning and can apply to the whole canopy or individual limbs. Attached is a copy of the proposal with a breakdown of what it entails. It was stated in our initial response that there was indeed a lapse in communication. It states, “Due to a computer issue on our side, the email never reached her. As soon as this issue was discovered, an email was sent to the client explaining the gap in communication and reiterated the solution [redacted] had attempted to send a couple of weeks prior.” There was never an issue receiving the clients email as she states we claim. We hate to be argumentative; however we refuse to allow these accusations to go unanswered. Our job was complete. Again, we are willing to accept $550 for the completed proposal, which is $300 less than the initial proposed price. With Respect, [redacted]Owner/Arborist[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:the job was NOT completed. The following were NOT done per the proposal.