Arrowwood Landscape Design Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Clearly this has become a case of he said, she said*** *** response contains numerous misrepresentations of what took placeI'm sure *** *** would say the same thing about my complaintObviously, very little of what has been said can be proven.I would like to address a few issues, however.Item 1: When we initially met with *** ***, I was more than clear that I wanted a weeping willow tree and I was assured by *** *** that these trees do well in our areaThere are a number of mature weeping willows in our area that are obviously thriving*** *** said that she is particularly fond of corkscrew willowsI told her that having a weeping willow has been a lifelong wish and again said that is what we wanted*** *** said that the weeping willow would be fine and would do well in the planned locationAfter our first meeting, the preliminary plans included a corkscrew willowWe reminded *** *** that we wanted a weeping willow and she said that she would revise the plans to include what we wantedWhen the plants arrived, a corkscrew willow was deliveredWe objected*** *** said, "I know, but I thought that when you saw it you would change your mind." We all heard her say this.*** *** is again misrepresenting the facts when she says that the tree was "added, situated, and re-situated" at our request*** *** or her workers chose the first location that did not match the location on the plansWe questioned the tree's placement because a mature tree has at least a 15-foot radius*** ***'s workers planted the tree about eight feet from the woods*** *** blamed her workers for the poor placement and agreed that the tree needed to be movedThe second location, again chosen by *** *** or her workers, was in several inches of standing waterOnce again, when we questioned this, *** *** blamed her workers for the poor placement and moved the treeBy this time the tree was severely stressed.We were, admittedly, remiss in failing to get our agreement regarding the tree in writingHowever, we all agreed that it would be a shame to discard the tree before giving it a chance*** *** asked us to let her know how the tree did after a full yearWhen the tree still failed to thrive, *** *** asked us to give it another full year before giving up on itAfter the second year, *** *** seemed to have forgotten our agreement.Item 2: We trusted *** *** as a professional to know what can and cannot be done with a creek bedAt a minimum, *** *** could have warned us that the rocks we paid for and paid to place would disappear within a few yearsShe should know this and should warn her clients that investing in rocks for this purpose could be considered by some to be a wasted of moneyWe are not professionals and should not be expected to know these things.Item 3: *** ** *** signed the contract*** *** is more than welcome to use *** *** photos of the projectUnfortunately for *** ***, *** *** has no photos of the projectThe photos that *** *** used on her website belong to my husband, *** ***, who is not party to any contract with *** ***The photos that *** *** used to market her services were taken without his permission from his *** pageThey were certainly not sent to her in emailOne of the photos was not even of the butterfly gardenIt was a photo of a flower on our bedroom balconyEven if this photo belonged to *** ***, which it did not, it would not be included in the contractual agreement allowing *** *** to use photos for marketing purposes*** *** illegally used Mr***'s photos and Mr*** deserves to be compensated for that use. Item of additional details: *** *** put no border on the flower beds, nor did she include one in the designPutting a photo that shows the rock border that Mr*** added and and representing that photo as the work of *** *** certainly constitutes desiring credit and responsibility for alterations by the homeowners.*** *** has stated that we approved of all the plant selectionsOf course we didShe purports to be a plant expert who knows the requirements of all the plants she recommendsShe told us that she was going to plant a particular plant in a particular place, and we agreed, trusting that she knows her businessShe studied our location and knew its limitationsShe knew that we would be relying on rainfall for irrigationIt was her job, as a professional, to make the appropriate plant choicesWe do not know plants at allThat's one of the reasons we hired herHowever, our approval of her plant choices does not make us responsible for many of the plants' failure to thriveWe now know that she put shade plants in full sun, put plants that need well-drained soil in perpetually wet clay, etc*** *** has decided that the plants' failure to thrive is somehow our fault because we approved her plant choicesI disagree.I respectfully invite *** *** to give out our contact information as a reference to future clientsBeyond that, it's clear at this point that she does not intend to resolve this issueI wish to close this case as not satisfactorily resolved at this pointIt's not worth any more time or energy
Regards,*** ***

Good communication is essential for positive experiences. It is unfortunate that this client waited three years before communicating disappointments. We make adjustments as possible when onsite. The client signedthe release and paid the balance of the
contract with no mention of concerns or disappointmentsDuring the full year warranty period on the plant material we received no negative feedback or concerns from the client regarding plant careor any other aspects of the project. After the warranty period we are available for telephone consults for free or in-person horticultural consultations for a small ‘Service Call’ fee. Unfortunately, we were not given thisopportunity on the vast majority of the negative statements in this complaint. After review of the contracts and documents associated with this client we would like to correct some factual errors.The project was commenced and completed in March of 2011.If the client will refer to her signed contract she will see that the contract total was $10,There was one signed contract change order additional materials for (Client should refer to contract document ***). Project total was $11,121.27, not 12,000. Item #1: The willow tree in qu***ion was a *** ***, it was not part of the original design nor recommended by us. It was added, situated and re-situated at the client’s requ***. That tree was included in the clients’ one year plant warranty, along with the r*** of the 200+ plants and shrubs installed. When we were contacted in June of the client’s husband expressed concern about the appearance of the tree. Although the warranty period had expired, a good faith offer in the spirit of providing first rate customer service was made to replace the tree with shared costs. The client declined this offer. The original cost of the *** *** was $(Client should refer to signed change order ***-*** to verify this amount.) In 2013, (two years after the warranty had expired) the client requested $compensation for removing and replacing the willow. This requestwas deemed, excessive and a significant permutation of the prior years’ good faith offer. At this time the complainant is requesting $for “half of the cost of the tree”, which is inconsistent with any priorcommunication. Unfortunately, when they removed and discarded the tree they gave us no opportunity to diagnose the tree and the possible cultural conditions which lead to their decision to remove it. We do not offer unlimited warranty on any products or services offered. Our generous plant warranty is posted clearly on our website. Item #2: The “Creek Bed”. The concept of the plan was to improve the appearance of a *** *** *** *** with river stone. A storm water ditch is not the same thing as a creek bed It became clear during the progress of work on this site that the area is inundated with water during times of heavy stormsWe were approached by a representative of the developer while onsite and informed that the area may be classified as an intermittent wetland. Wetlands are regulated through Federal Legislation, The *** *** *** While the placement of pervious rocks and gravel are permissible, placement of impervious materials, such as geo-fabrics and liners are prohibited. Our services are performed based on the information we are provided with as such we stand by our decisions made during this portion of the project. Item #3: Photos of the landscape. Referring again to her signed contractual agreement; Item #“Before and after photos of the landscape may be used in our literature, brochures and website”. Permission to use the photos is a standardagreement in all of our contracts. Several of the photos posted on the website were taken by us. Additionally, the husband of the client gave us photos of the landscape via email. (Attached is one of several friendly emails sent MrG- wherein photos of the landscape were attached). While we do have written permission to use photos of the landscape, we respect the clients requ*** for removal and have replaced those images with photos from another project. Additional details that are important to this case are as follows:1. The client was given a complete list of plants that were to be included in the area with links to the growers’ website and full information about each plant. The plant list was approved by the client.2. 20 Cubic yards, which is roughly equivalent to tons, of screened topsoil was added to the garden site to improve drainage and encourage optimal plant health.3. During the warranty period of one full year we received no complaints, concerns nor dissatisfaction expressed by the client.4. We were never informed that the mulch was washing out of the mulch beds and never given an opportunity to address the situation. 5. While the gazebo was installed at a later date, it was a part of the original conceptual design provided by Arrowwood Landscape Design, INC.6. We neither desire credit nor responsibility for any alterations to the landscape by the homeowners.Respectfully submitted,

Review: We hired [redacted], owner of Arrowwood Landscape Design, in April of 2011, to design and install a butterfly garden in front of our home. We had issues with [redacted] from the start, and, over time, became quite dissatisfied with the final results. We're not landscaping professionals, so we were initially unaware of the poor quality of [redacted]'s work. However, over the 3 1/2 years since [redacted] worked at our home, we have had to repair, replace, and enhance far too much of what she did.

The issues below are just a few of the more serious problems that we had.

Many of the plants that [redacted] selected and planted died because they were not planted where they should have been. Shade plants were planted in full sun. Plants that like well-drained soil were planted too close to the creek bed where they were sure to have perpetually wet roots.

Due to [redacted]'s negligence, the weeping willow tree that she planted got off to a very bad start. It had to be replanted three times in just a few days, and was quite stressed and obviously unhealthy when [redacted] finished her work. We discussed this issue with [redacted] and she encouraged us to give the tree a chance, assuring us that she would replace the tree if it didn't recover and thrive. With [redacted]'s encouragement, we allowed a year to pass to see if the tree would look better by the spring of 2012. When that did not happen, we again contacted [redacted] who again encouraged us to give the tree a chance to go through another four seasons. In 2013, when it was clear that the tree was dead, we contacted [redacted] and fully expected a replacement. Instead, [redacted] told us that the tree's warranty had expired.

By 2013, it was clear that most of [redacted]'s other work was sub-standard as well. Because of the dead willow, we hired [redacted] to replace the tree and to do some other landscaping. The [redacted] representative was appalled by [redacted]'s work. The tons of rock placed to create a creek bed had already disappeared because of [redacted]'s failure to line the creek bed with a protective liner. From what we know now, any reputable landscaper should warn clients that, without a lining, rocks will quickly sink into the mud and disappear. The cost to repair this problem is quite substantial.

We had pretty much written off our losses until I recently stumbled upon the website for Arrowwood Landscape Design, Inc. What a surprise to see pictures of our butterfly garden on the home page! Not only do these pictures NOT represent [redacted]'s work, they were taken by my husband and, apparently, stolen, by [redacted], from his [redacted] page for use on [redacted]'s website. She did NOT have my husband's permission to use his photos for advertising purposes, especially since these photos are NOT photos of [redacted]'s work. In fact, the [redacted] daisies in one of the photos are in a potted plant on our balcony.

One of our complaints about [redacted]'s finished product was the fact that the flower beds had no borders whatsoever. The mulch quickly began to spread and thin into what was supposed to be the grass. (The grass that she seeded never grew.) My husband purchased the rocks and installed the rock borders himself. They were not part of [redacted]'s design. However, the rock borders are featured prominently on [redacted]'s website.

[redacted] did leave us with a gravel area for our future gazebo. She had nothing to do with the purchase or installation of the gazebo, however. Yet my husband's photo that purports to show [redacted]'s work also features our gazebo.

The [redacted], again featured prominently on [redacted]'s website and promoted as her work, was not even part of [redacted]'s design for the garden. My husband, son, and I are 100% responsible for the design and installation of that [redacted].

As I said previously, we have many, many more complaints about [redacted] and Arrowwood Landscape Design. However, those mentioned above serve to illustrate our dissatisfaction with her services and her subsequent use of stolen photos to claim credit for work that she did not do.

In the event that [redacted] denies having these photos on her website, I have gone ahead and preserved a copy of the website as it was on October 25, 2014. This copy will only be used to document the unauthorized and fraudulent use of our photos, should [redacted] deny our allegations.Desired Settlement: 1) $300 compensation for half the cost to replace the willow tree

2) $3,000 compensation to partially offset the projected cost of re-doing the creek bed

3) Cease and desist using our photos and our project on the Arrowwood website

4) $2,100 compensation for unauthorized use and possible profit from stolen photos ($300 per photo times seven photos)

Business

Response:

Good communication is essential for positive experiences. It is unfortunate that this client waited three years before communicating disappointments. We make adjustments as possible when onsite. The client signedthe release and paid the balance of the contract with no mention of concerns or disappointments. During the full year warranty period on the plant material we received no negative feedback or concerns from the client regarding plant careor any other aspects of the project. After the warranty period we are available for telephone consults for free or in-person horticultural consultations for a small ‘Service Call’ fee. Unfortunately, we were not given thisopportunity on the vast majority of the negative statements in this complaint. After review of the contracts and documents associated with this client we would like to correct some factual errors.The project was commenced and completed in March of 2011.If the client will refer to her signed contract she will see that the contract total was $10,901.49. There was one signed contract change order additional materials for 1016.73 (Client should refer to contract document [redacted]). Project total was $11,121.27, not 12,000. Item #1: The willow tree in qu[redacted]ion was a [redacted], it was not part of the original design nor recommended by us. It was added, situated and re-situated at the client’s requ[redacted]. That tree was included in the clients’ one year plant warranty, along with the r[redacted] of the 200+ plants and shrubs installed. When we were contacted in June of 2012 the client’s husband expressed concern about the appearance of the tree. Although the warranty period had expired, a good faith offer in the spirit of providing first rate customer service was made to replace the tree with shared costs. The client declined this offer. The original cost of the [redacted] was $94.00. (Client should refer to signed change order [redacted] to verify this amount.) In 2013, (two years after the warranty had expired) the client requested $399.00 compensation for removing and replacing the willow. This requestwas deemed, excessive and a significant permutation of the prior years’ good faith offer. At this time the complainant is requesting $300.00 for “half of the cost of the tree”, which is inconsistent with any priorcommunication. Unfortunately, when they removed and discarded the tree they gave us no opportunity to diagnose the tree and the possible cultural conditions which lead to their decision to remove it. We do not offer unlimited warranty on any products or services offered. Our generous plant warranty is posted clearly on our website. Item #2: The “Creek Bed”. The concept of the plan was to improve the appearance of a [redacted] with river stone. A storm water ditch is not the same thing as a creek bed. It became clear during the progress of work on this site that the area is inundated with water during times of heavy storms. We were approached by a representative of the developer while onsite and informed that the area may be classified as an intermittent wetland. Wetlands are regulated through Federal Legislation, The [redacted] While the placement of pervious rocks and gravel are permissible, placement of impervious materials, such as geo-fabrics and liners are prohibited. Our services are performed based on the information we are provided with as such we stand by our decisions made during this portion of the project. Item #3: Photos of the landscape. Referring again to her signed contractual agreement; Item #14 “Before and after photos of the landscape may be used in our literature, brochures and website”. Permission to use the photos is a standardagreement in all of our contracts. Several of the photos posted on the website were taken by us. Additionally, the husband of the client gave us photos of the landscape via email. (Attached is one of several friendly emails sent Mr. G- wherein photos of the landscape were attached). While we do have written permission to use photos of the landscape, we respect the clients requ[redacted] for removal and have replaced those images with photos from another project. Additional details that are important to this case are as follows:1. The client was given a complete list of plants that were to be included in the area with links to the growers’ website and full information about each plant. The plant list was approved by the client.2. 20 Cubic yards, which is roughly equivalent to 30 tons, of screened topsoil was added to the garden site to improve drainage and encourage optimal plant health.3. During the warranty period of one full year we received no complaints, concerns nor dissatisfaction expressed by the client.4. We were never informed that the mulch was washing out of the mulch beds and never given an opportunity to address the situation. 5. While the gazebo was installed at a later date, it was a part of the original conceptual design provided by Arrowwood Landscape Design, INC.6. We neither desire credit nor responsibility for any alterations to the landscape by the homeowners.Respectfully submitted,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Clearly this has become a case of he said, she said. [redacted] response contains numerous misrepresentations of what took place. I'm sure [redacted] would say the same thing about my complaint. Obviously, very little of what has been said can be proven.I would like to address a few issues, however.Item 1: When we initially met with [redacted], I was more than clear that I wanted a weeping willow tree and I was assured by [redacted] that these trees do well in our area. There are a number of mature weeping willows in our area that are obviously thriving. [redacted] said that she is particularly fond of corkscrew willows. I told her that having a weeping willow has been a lifelong wish and again said that is what we wanted. [redacted] said that the weeping willow would be fine and would do well in the planned location. After our first meeting, the preliminary plans included a corkscrew willow. We reminded [redacted] that we wanted a weeping willow and she said that she would revise the plans to include what we wanted. When the plants arrived, a corkscrew willow was delivered. We objected. [redacted] said, "I know, but I thought that when you saw it you would change your mind." We all heard her say this.[redacted] is again misrepresenting the facts when she says that the tree was "added, situated, and re-situated" at our request. [redacted] or her workers chose the first location that did not match the location on the plans. We questioned the tree's placement because a mature tree has at least a 15-foot radius. [redacted]'s workers planted the tree about eight feet from the woods. [redacted] blamed her workers for the poor placement and agreed that the tree needed to be moved. The second location, again chosen by [redacted] or her workers, was in several inches of standing water. Once again, when we questioned this, [redacted] blamed her workers for the poor placement and moved the tree. By this time the tree was severely stressed.We were, admittedly, remiss in failing to get our agreement regarding the tree in writing. However, we all agreed that it would be a shame to discard the tree before giving it a chance. [redacted] asked us to let her know how the tree did after a full year. When the tree still failed to thrive, [redacted] asked us to give it another full year before giving up on it. After the second year, [redacted] seemed to have forgotten our agreement.Item 2: We trusted [redacted] as a professional to know what can and cannot be done with a creek bed. At a minimum, [redacted] could have warned us that the rocks we paid for and paid to place would disappear within a few years. She should know this and should warn her clients that investing in rocks for this purpose could be considered by some to be a wasted of money. We are not professionals and should not be expected to know these things.Item 3: [redacted] signed the contract. [redacted] is more than welcome to use [redacted] photos of the project. Unfortunately for [redacted] has no photos of the project. The photos that [redacted] used on her website belong to my husband, [redacted], who is not party to any contract with [redacted]. The photos that [redacted] used to market her services were taken without his permission from his [redacted] page. They were certainly not sent to her in email. One of the photos was not even of the butterfly garden. It was a photo of a flower on our bedroom balcony. Even if this photo belonged to [redacted], which it did not, it would not be included in the contractual agreement allowing [redacted] to use photos for marketing purposes. [redacted] illegally used Mr. [redacted]'s photos and Mr. [redacted] deserves to be compensated for that use. Item 6 of additional details: [redacted] put no border on the flower beds, nor did she include one in the design. Putting a photo that shows the rock border that Mr. [redacted] added and and representing that photo as the work of [redacted] certainly constitutes desiring credit and responsibility for alterations by the homeowners.[redacted] has stated that we approved of all the plant selections. Of course we did. She purports to be a plant expert who knows the requirements of all the plants she recommends. She told us that she was going to plant a particular plant in a particular place, and we agreed, trusting that she knows her business. She studied our location and knew its limitations. She knew that we would be relying on rainfall for irrigation. It was her job, as a professional, to make the appropriate plant choices. We do not know plants at all. That's one of the reasons we hired her. However, our approval of her plant choices does not make us responsible for many of the plants' failure to thrive. We now know that she put shade plants in full sun, put plants that need well-drained soil in perpetually wet clay, etc. [redacted] has decided that the plants' failure to thrive is somehow our fault because we approved her plant choices. I disagree.I respectfully invite [redacted] to give out our contact information as a reference to future clients. Beyond that, it's clear at this point that she does not intend to resolve this issue. I wish to close this case as not satisfactorily resolved at this point. It's not worth any more time or energy.

Regards,