Azure Home Remodeling, LLC

Complaint: I am rejecting this response because:At the end of their long response, it states that they gave us $1,as well as $2, Please note that we have NOT accepted any refund from them at this time In fact, it is confusing what they are even stating Does this mean a total of $3,to be refunded? Not clear.In the reference to any prices being verbalized or agreed to - this never happened, the electrician never "told us a price".No complaints were ever made about drywall seams - as stated in previous emails, we are concerned they are confusing us with other customer complaints All of our concerns, we feel, are clearly stated.Also, from what they are saying about the payment agreement - that they expect 100% of a bid to be paid up front? That 50% down is not normal? The payment agreement clearly stated that the remainder would be paid at 75% completion, then when fully complete That seems market standard from the other business we have spoken with We never told them we didn't have the money.Please advise on what the next step is This back and forth has gone on since December 18th, We have obviously moved on with this project in our home What we are asking for is a refund from the down payment, and we feel that in the emails provided we have made it clear of our disputes Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: 11118388
I am rejecting this response because:At the end of their long response, it states that they gave us $1,102 as well as $2,227.50.  Please note that we have NOT accepted any refund from them at this time.  In fact, it is confusing what they are even stating.  Does this mean a total of $3,329.50 to be refunded?  Not clear.In the reference to any prices being verbalized or agreed to - this never happened, the electrician never "told us a price".No complaints were ever made about drywall seams - as stated in previous emails, we are concerned they are confusing us with other customer complaints.  All of our concerns, we feel, are clearly stated.Also, from what they are saying about the payment agreement - that they expect 100% of a bid to be paid up front?  That 50% down is not normal?  The payment agreement clearly stated that the remainder would be paid at 75% completion, then when fully complete.  That seems market standard from the other business we have spoken with.  We never told them we didn't have the money.Please advise on what the next step is.  This back and forth has gone on since December 18th, 2015.  We have obviously moved on with this project in our home.  What we are asking for is a refund from the down payment, and we feel that in the emails provided we have made it clear of our disputes.   
Sincerely,
[redacted] [redacted]

Our response is provided in two parts below. First is a detailed explanation of the project, then below that we have copied and pasted the client’s email so we can respond directly to a few of their items. Before this build began, the client said they didn’t have much money to be completing this...

project. This is no p[redacted]lem, and we just did our best to keep costs down. Although all work is typically expected to be paid for when work is complete, we did provide terms to this client as a favor. We also did a pretty decent amount of work for free, lent them our personal tools so they could save money by doing their own demolition, and gave tremendous discounts to try and help them out. They were happy to take advantage of the free work, discounts, and the offer to borrow our tools. At the time, we were happy to do it for them, too. This is how we treat all of our customers. This is usually reciprocated, though. However, this was not enough for them. Throughout the build, we received complaint after complaint from them (something atypical of our clients). Once they complained we had a 1/16th inch seam in drywall before mudding. They had issues with the dust and drywall in the kitchen as we were working. They complained about a glob of drywall mud on a window casing. They complained their can lights weren’t straight before we were done installing them. They just generally made our jobs tough. Throughout the project, the client was unclear on what they wanted done in their home. His wife showed us a beautiful picture of a kitchen and stated this is what she wanted. We began work with a pretty good idea of what the client wanted and plans for what we pictured. However, as the project progressed, there were many changes to the scope of work including an additional 240v line, demolition, additional lighting, and a ton of extra electrical work (heat lines to their bathrooms, lights on their back porch, additional outlets on their island, etc.). There were some items that we did not charge for, but we do need to charge for some of it – we’re a business. The client has stated multiple times they will not pay for the additional items because they are not in writing and we can’t prove that we did them. This is, as you may surmise, profoundly unfair and dishonest. This client is looking for no more than free money, as has been the case from the beginning of the project. This is disappointing to us after the two weeks of work the owner of the company ([redacted]) put into their home, in addition to the full-time employee working alongside him, an additional contract employee who spent two days there, and the electrician who spent three full days there. It is also in addition to all of the materials we provided. It is also disappointing that after numerous requests from us to send the master electrician to verify the work and fix anything that is wrong, they refused. As we explained to them, Colorado State law requires that a client allow the contractor to fix anything that is wrong. This customer wouldn’t even let us see what they had a p[redacted]lem with, which indicates to us that they were looking for nothing more than free work. We are still more than happy to send the master electrician in to review anything they believe has been done incorrectly. We are still more than happy to fix anything that is not up to code, as we have told them from the beginning. It is not reasonable to refuse to pay for work that was done, claim it is not correct, but to refuse to allow the contractor to see the work or fix it.   They are right, however: the job was not completed, as they chose to end the contract in the middle of the project. Because it was not done, we removed the charges for all of the work that was not completed (a total of $5,920 of charges that were removed). We did not require them to finish out the contract with us (which would have been our right, but if they don’t want to work with us we won’t force them to). However, we do require that they pay for the work that was complete by the date that they chose to cancel. This includes the remaining line items on the original estimate, in addition to the change orders to the work (which mostly consists of additional lights, additional electrical work, and additional areas drywalled). At this point, we have removed all charges for work we didn’t do. We have discounted the lighting that they requested, that we installed, that they decided they didn’t like after a week of work. We have discounted the demolition we did as a favor. This is all in addition to giving them a great deal on the project in the first place. Additionally, we credited them for a brand new door that they state we damaged – we have not seen this door or even a picture of it; the credit was given in good faith. Additionally, we credited them 10% of the drywall costs as we spent over 20 hours drywalling and had about an hour or two left (for sanding). We have also already sent them a check for the $2,227.50, which is all that is due to them (actually, it’s more than is due to them as we gave them discounts to try to make them happy). Below, we have copied their original complaint and provided responses directly below each statement. Customer: We gave this company a down payment for a kitchen remodel in the amount of $10,000.00. We are not able to come to an agreement on the money that they owed back to us for the difference of the original amount and work that was completed in our home. On December 18th, 2015, when we had issues with the workmanship of the job, we asked the contractor to come to the house to discuss, however they declined after multiple attempts. Response: First, the customer’s complaints about workmanship were very minor items that did not need to be addressed on a Friday evening, but since they texted us we responded within 24 hours. Each of the 5 items were no big deal, pretty standard for mid-project, with the exception of one item. Their first complaint was that there were too many lights in the kitchen. We agreed; we had planned to put only 8 lights in their kitchen in a standard format. The customer, however, had demanded much more lighting, and we obliged. The lighting went up on a Monday, and the customer approved it, saying it was exactly what he wanted. By Friday, all of the drywall and finishing work was done, and the customer complained that there were too many lights. We fully agreed as we had told them this from the beginning, and we provided a few ideas on how we could shift lighting around without charging them. We spent our entire weekend trying to work on a solution for them (far more than any other contractor would have done). After the customer had changed their minds on what they wanted multiple times (like was the situation with this lighting), we requested that the customer draw up plans of exactly what they wanted. They refused, saying that they would prefer to have a dialogue. After an exhausting weekend of complaints and with their refusal to put anything in writing, we did not want to arrive on Monday without a clear plan of what they wanted built in their home. They also said they understood us needing a day. We offered to meet with them Tuesday (the following day) or any other time that worked for them, but we did say we would need to confirm things in writing so everyone had a clear picture. They declined to meet with us ever again. Customer: From that date forward, there has been multiple email exchanges as the only contact. They refused to have any kind of dialog with us. Response: I hate to say a client is lying….so I won’t actually say it. Please read the email, which clearly demonstrates their statement is untrue. We said we were happy to come out Tuesday or any other day, but we just needed confirmations in writing. When they refused Tuesday, we offered “any other time that works for you”. We also offered the following week since it was Christmas week. During the email exchanges we offered to have master electricians come inspect, as they refused to meet with us, but they refused that request as well. Offer after offer to meet with them came from us – their claim is inaccurate. Customer: After they offered to "refund" us the difference of the down payment verses they work that they stated was completed on December 20th, 2015 - they then submitted a "mid-job bid" that was inflated from the original bid. We requested a detail of the "mid-job bid" that they submitted, which they did not provide. Response: Again, the client is not being honest, easily provable by the email. We did provide this via email, we even got a detailed list from the electrician of the extra electrical work that was done that we sent to them (even though they were both present when the electrician explained the extra work and costs associated with each line item). Customer: We asked several times for the name of the electrician that they had working in our home so we could verify that he was a licensed electrician, which after multiple requests, they avoided the request. In the last few emails, it was clear that he is not a licensed electrician. Response: The client and his wife were only home for an hour of the time [redacted] (the electrician to whom they are referring) was there. They are unaware that they are asking for the credentials of an employee of a company. [redacted] works under the master electrician’s license as a technician – pretty standard stuff. Had the client not been demanding free work or us to pay for all nonexistent “damages” in their home, we would have been happy to provide them with all of the information of the company, as we regularly pull permits for our work through the building department (something you cannot do without a license). At the point where they were asking for this information, they had made it clear that we would either have to give them work for free or they would sue us. Their issue is with us, not our subcontractor, from a legal standpoint. As they have proven to be litigious, we have chosen to keep this between us and them. We’re not about to have our electrician get bogged down with this mess if the client is standing firm on his refusal to let anyone see or fix what he’s complaining about. In the end, though, he works for a licensed company, and his company pulls permits and performs work for us on a regular basis. Even if he had been some guy off the street who came in and rewired half of their house, they would still have to pay for the service – they received a service, and we offered multiple times to have the master electrician come out to inspect and fix anything that isn’t to code. If there had truly been issues, they would have wanted us to see and fix them. Customer: It is the work that was done by this person that is the majority of the inflated cost to the bid. Response: This is correct; the majority of the increase in costs was due to additional electrical work needed in their home, all of which was discussed fully with both the client and his wife, with the electrician, us, and another employee present. The additional work was also outlined in detail in an email dated Monday, Dec. 28, 2015. However, another huge increase in cost was due to their insistence that we install far more lighting than what we bid and submitted plans for. Customer: Through many email exchanges, they were unprofessional, and unethical. Threats of retaliation, threats of counter suing and statements that in nature have felt very threatening and attempt to intimidate, as well as some that were simply not true. Response: I do not see anywhere that we have been either unprofessional or unethical. We had bended and folded in every manner possible to please this client, and when we stopped short of giving them additional free work, they stated they would sue us. In response, we clearly outlined our recourse if they chose to do this. I believe this is more than fair, to outline exactly what our defense is. They were under the impression we had no pictures or proof of the work we did so they could sue us and state we didn’t do the work. Letting them know that we have pictures and witnesses and that we are willing to subpoena their last contractor they told us they stiffed – that’s fair. Letting them know that we absolutely do not want to be forced to pull a permit for our work to prove it’s not faulty, as we and the client both know they had us do something that would not pass inspection is fair and pretty nice of us to not just go pull the permit that would make them redo their kitchen again. But letting them know that if they want to take this to the legal system, we have to also take this to the legal system to prove our work is correct by pulling a permit – it stinks, but it’s fair. I also believe it was fair to let them know that should they attack us via the court system, we would fight back with what we believed we were owed; we’re not giving discounts to make someone happy if they want to sue anyway. Customer: We made one final attempt to settle with them last week, and then made the decision that a process such as this would be necessary to come to an agreement. We intend to submit all of the email, text messages as well as photos and video clips of work that was done and the state that they left it in when they were last in the house on December 18th, 2015,… Response: Yes, we would appreciate seeing photos and video clips. We are in the dark on what they think is wrong or if it really is wrong. They sent a very vague email with a list of things they believed to be wrong on 1/4/16 – some of the items were well-known to them as the work was done, and the others were confusing as to what they were saying the problem was. They stated something wasn’t to code, but didn’t explain what. We checked with the electrician, who said each item was to code. Because we have not been allowed to review the work, our hands are sort of tied here. However, if videos are sent we can finally begin to get a better idea of what the issue is, then we will be more than happy to send someone in to inspect so we can move forward on making it right. We would love to come fix anything that doesn’t meet code – we just have to be allowed to know what it is. We have been doing this a long time and have yet to have a customer complain of faulty work. We find it unlikely there is any major issue, but we, of course, would want to fix it if there is. As we advised the client, Colorado State law allows us to personally inspect any issues with the work and fix it ourselves if there are any problems. If they still choose to not allow us to come in and see what they think is wrong or have it inspected by our master electrician prior to them having someone else work on our work, that is their choice but our obligations to them end there. Customer: …as well as the original bid, "mid-job bid" and their own contract which outlines how they state that they do business, all to help settle this matter. Other details of the inconsistencies will also be outlined at the reviewers decision. There were details of the project overall that were overlooked, underestimated, ignored, miscommunication, misinterpreted, twisted and neglected in our point of view. Response: The customer continues to use unfriendly words to describe us, but all we’re asking for is payment for the work we did. They have tried every tactic possible to get out of paying. They started off by threatening to sue if we didn’t waive all charges for the additions to the work and by telling us our work was bad. After we informed them that the law requires they allow us to inspect and fix (and that we’re not just giving them money back without seeing whatever the issue is), they started in with every other tactic, as they knew we would be happy to fix anything wrong and they would still have to pay. They have tried saying work is incomplete, they have tried saying we can’t prove we did the extra work so they’re not paying, they have tried saying the electrician isn’t licensed so they shouldn’t have to pay for the work they received. They have tried saying the charges aren’t on the original bid so they’re not paying them. They have tried saying the electrical work is bad so they shouldn’t have to pay (yet they refuse to let us see it or fix it). They have tried saying someone else came in and claims the amount we are charging is “well outside of the realm of the work that has been done…both on a practical level and a professional level”. Since drywall covered most of what we had done, that’s a silly claim to make. They have tried saying the charges aren’t in writing so they don’t apply. They have also continued raising the refund requested every time. They have literally tried everything they can think of to get out of paying for the work we did. On all accounts that the extra work was not done, we can prove we did it. On all accounts that the work was bad, they are required to let us see it and fix it, but they have refused both. This is not a client who has had an issue with a contractor, this is a client who doesn’t want to pay. In closing (sorry for the long explanation), good customer service includes being prompt in responses and offering solutions for issues, both of which we have done over and over again, during the build and after. It does not, however, include doing work for free. It does not include continuing to do work when a client will not put anything in writing. It also does not include giving money back to a client for something they say our subcontractor did not do correctly if they refuse to let us have someone else fix it – or even let us look at it. We should note here that the reason we requested everything in writing was that the client told the owner of our company that he had just refused to pay his painter his final payment, because the client had complained about poor workmanship. The following day, the client complained about poor workmanship to us, and complained that they didn’t like the lighting that they selected and approved after installation, that we had advised against. We realized that this may be a situation where we may not be paid because the client didn’t like the design they selected, so we needed to get plans with associated costs in writing. We believe we were justified in asking for written plans when we did, and their continued insistence on not paying for work that was not in writing demonstrates that our instincts were correct. Attached is a copy of the cashier’s check we have already sent, which includes a discount for lights they requested but didn’t like, the door they say we damaged, drywall they cancelled after it was done and only needed to be sanded, the electrical only being finished to rough-in, and the numerous other things that were discounted previously. Our proposed resolution is that they let us come look at the work they say is faulty, we will fix anything that is. Past this, their requests are unreasonable. We have acted in good faith, but we’re not giving them free money - we are happy to fix anything that needs to be fixed.

Hello. I have copied and pasted the client’s email below then addressed each concern separately (again).   I am rejecting this response because:   We are not sure why they are saying that this is an issue of "not having the money for the project".  We would have never taken on this size of project if we did not have the money to complete it.  As it is stated in the contract, we paid a down payment, then 2 consecutive payments were to be made with the ongoing completion on the job.  This does not seem to be out of line for this kind or work or contract.    It’s actually not an issue at all, the only reason we have mentioned it is that the customer has stated several times that money was not an issue via email after the fact. It’s frustrating that they are willing to forget speaking to us on multiple occasions prior to the build starting, saying they didn’t have the money and asking us to please take terms. It’s frustrating that we as a company had multiple discussions amongst ourselves that we do not accept terms and we should not accept the job, but eventually decided to do the customer a favor and accept terms to help them out. It’s just one more thing they say happened or didn’t happen that’s not accurate.      At this time, we will attach the email exchanges, the original bid and contract, pictures of the workmanship of the lights, and the "mid-job" bid.   These pictures show the holes we popped in the drywall. As we explained to the client over and over (3-4 times during the weekend), we just need to install the baffles; the exact positioning of the drywall holes is not indicative of where the final lights sit. We assured them that we install can lights more often than anything else, and once finished they would be perfectly straight.   What the pictures do show, however, is that the customer did have us install 16 can lights and allowed us to spend a whole week doing drywall after the lights were installed before they decided to say they didn’t like how many there were. They then expected us to not charge them for the extra lights they requested because they didn’t like them. The charge we bid was for 8 lights. These pictures show 16 lights installed. The original charge on the bid for lights was $1470 – why would the customer dispute that they owe double ($2,940) for the lights? Double the lights is double the charge. They have decided that instead of $2,940 for the lights, they only want to pay $1,102.50 – taking a $1,837.50 discount for themselves because they don’t like the design they selected.   As we have stated in the emails attached, we are not claiming that we will not pay for the work that was done - plumbing, removal of the popcorn, moving of the ducting and such items that are listed in the emails. What we do not feel is owed to them is the "total due" for electrical work that was not complete, as well as the drywall total, which again was not complete.   The client’s dispute clearly states they will not pay for the removal of popcorn ceilings, that they will only pay for items on the original estimate. We have also already credited them $600 for the electrical being completed only to rough-in. We have also discounted them 10% from the drywall costs since the drywall was not yet sanded. Pictures clearly show the hours of work we have put into the drywall, including hanging and mudding, which take 90% of the time when installing drywall. Because only sanding was left, which is an hour or two project, we did discount them this (and already included it in their refund check).     And yes, the poor workmanship added insult to injury.   Again, the client has not allowed us to see any of the issues they have problems with. There are several complaints, and we request again (as we have multiple times already) to allow us to see the issues and to allow the master electrician to inspect.   After the email that they offered to part ways with us, it was clear that they were going to hike up the price - for an incomplete job.  When we asked for a detail list, they did not produce this.   The list was provided with detailed explanations of the original three charges they wanted to dispute on 12/22. They had 3 disputes:   1.    They disputed $350 in additional drywall charges since the estimate said had said “1 unit” instead of breaking it down by sheet of drywall. We responded promptly explaining the additional area was for the walls while the estimate clearly showed we had bid for only the ceilings.   2.    They disputed additional electrical charges, even though the electrician had already explained the additional charges. We responded by retrieving a response in detail from the electrician and forwarding them the reply.   3.    They disputed $300 because they say we damaged their door. We responded by immediately crediting them $300 for this door without seeing it, just in good faith.   In their response to this complaint, they mention wiring lights to the back porch - these were existing lighting that had been covered up since we have owned the home - bought in 2003.  When we came home that week, Rob, the person doing the electrical, had them exposed and the interior wall torn up.  He asked if we wanted them to be usable - and at the state that they were in, it made sense to leave them exposed.  However, they were not finished when they were last in the home.     Correct – we were only at rough-in at the time the client chose to let us go. This does not negate the fact that the electrician asked if the client would like him to make them usable, told them the price, they said yes, and he ran the new wiring and light boxes.   They also mention in their response running electric up to our bathrooms upstairs - yes, they took the existing microwave line and drilled through the floor into the bathroom, there is now that wiring coming up through the floor upstairs- not near ready to be used for intended heating.     It is ready, all of the footwork was done, wiring run, the only piece left was installing the heaters.   During this drilling is when they drilled through the pocket door in our main bathroom that we have asked for a credit for, as it will need to be replaced.    This is why we gave them a $300 credit for the door which, again, we never saw.   We could go on, and on, as they did.  But the information is all in the email exchanges attached, and we will be happy to clarify and elaborate on anything that is needed. We did not invite them back into the home to "fix" anything - we were not happy with the quality of the work that was being done, so why would we want them into the home.   Their email stated they had issues with the electrical work. We offered to have a different master electrician come to inspect, they refused. Had there truly been a major issue with any of the electrician’s workmanship, what would their objection have been about us hiring a completely different electrician to evaluate and fix the work?   We agree – if someone were doing electrical work on our homes and we were not happy with his work, we would certainly not want the same person doing any further work. But to have a company offer to have someone else inspect and fix – that’s really good customer service. To have the customer refuse that offer is indicative of something else going on.   We are not seeking payment for damages or repairs needed to the work that they did in our home.     That is good – they wouldn’t allow us to inspect the issue so we wouldn’t be liable anyway.   We stand behind our feeling that we should not have to pay for work that was not completed….   We do, too. They should not have to pay for anything that was not completed, hence why we have removed all charges for work not completed and refunded them over $2,000.   …work that was done in poor workman ship…   “Poor workmanship” is a subjective term, easily thrown around to get out of paying for something. To produce a true qualitative and quantitative assessment, we have offered to inspect or have someone else inspect, and to fix anything that does not meet code. They have refused, and have insisted upon using their term “poor workmanship” without allowing us to inspect. Our best conclusion is that their idea of “poor workmanship” versus the building department’s idea of “poor workmanship” differ significantly. Once more, since they are requesting not to pay for this service based on “poor workmanship” they are required to allow us to inspect. We are more than happy to have a different electrician (our master or another master) evaluate and fix anything that is not up to code. We are also more than happy to come review the work ourselves.   …and with poor customer service.     This is another great subjective term. This, however, we are able qualify and quantify. During the build, we discounted multiple line items, just to provide good customer service. We agreed to a payment arrangement with them, to provide good customer service. We showed up after 8:30p.m. to fix a drip, to provide good customer service. We showed up on a couple of Sunday evenings for free advice to them to provide good customer service. We lent them our personal tools to provide good customer service. We stayed late at work discussing the project with them several nights along with our hourly employees, to provide good customer service. We discounted a door they say the electrician damaged, no argument from us, to provide good customer service. We spent an entire weekend of our unpaid time trying to provide options for them after they decided they didn’t like the lighting they insisted upon, assuring them on our off time that their lights would be straight over and over – to provide good customer service. We offered to have another electrician come in and evaluate the work of our primary electrician, to provide good customer service. We are also spending long hours of our unpaid time to continuously address this through the Revdex.com, as customer service is important to us.   Their idea of “poor customer service” in this situation is a bit off the mark. Our insistence on being paid for the work we did and our request that we either get plans in writing or confirm via email is not poor customer service.   We do not believe that the "mid-job" bid is an accurate account for the work that was done in the home as they are stating. We believe that the emails speak for themselves.  We are not trying to get work done for free, scam them, or be untruthful as they accuse us of being.     Yes, the long email chain does speak for itself. It shows their dispute of charges and our sound response. It shows them threatening to sue if we didn’t waive all charges for the additions to the work and them telling us our work was bad but refusing to let us see it or have someone inspect. It shows that their continued claim that we refused to meet with them (the entire basis for letting us go) is entirely false. It shows that they tried to get out of paying for work because they thought we couldn’t prove we did it. It also shows that they refused to pay for any additional electrical work they thought we couldn’t prove until we outlined that anyone looking at the case would see that they were stating we didn’t do any additional electrical work but simultaneously claiming we damaged a door while doing that additional work they claim we didn’t do. It also shows clearly that we installed 16 lights (double the number bid for). Each light is $183.75, which should be a total charge of $2940. The email shows that the customer has decided they are only paying $1102.50 for the lights that they insisted upon, we installed, they approved, and they decided they didn’t like. They have arbitrarily decided they get a $1837.50 discount for…..(we don’t know)? The lights not being straight before the baffles were installed? For the baffles not being installed yet, something that would take less than an hour to do? We are a business, we did the work that was requested, and even advised against it. It’s not our problem that they didn’t like their choice, they still have to pay. It can easily be seen here that their bad decision in their eyes equals us not getting paid for doing the work they requested. Again another great reason we asked for everything in writing.   We have more pictures and video if it will be helpful in understanding our side of this.  It seemed to us that when we started asking questions and were unhappy with the quality of the work, that they wanted out of the job…   Actually, we were happy when they cancelled the rest of the order. The constant complaints of things that were completely unreasonable to complain about (a 1/16th inch seam in drywall, their stove having dust on it while we are in the middle of renovating their kitchen, a glob of drywall mud on window casing complained about mid-project, us finishing the drywall and lighting too quickly, etc. etc. etc.) were a bit much. Their complaint that their lights were not straight before they were done – this was totally reasonable. Once we assured them this was no big deal and they would be straight once baffles were in, and they chose to continue complaining about them over and over during the weekend, our patience began wearing thin. How many times must a contractor assure a customer that the lights will be straight once the baffles are in, that they do this all the time? Unfortunately, the client decided to let us go, falsely claiming we wouldn’t meet with them, so they never got to see our finalized product with baffles installed.   …and in turn, hiked up the price, to decrease the money back to us, and be able to part ways.  We were very uncomfortable with the entire exchange.     No prices have been hiked. Prices have been nothing but discounted. They want a refund for more because the electrical wasn’t done? We already discounted it $600 and sent them a check for it. They want a refund for the drywall not being complete? We give them a discount for it. They want a $1800 discount on the lights because they didn’t like them? Sorry, we did the work and they approved it. They want the $1800 discount on the lights because the baffles weren’t in yet? We’ll come over for 30 minutes and the baffles will be installed. They want $1800 off the lights because the drywall holes that sit under them wasn’t straight? Sorry, that’s not a discount-able reason. The baffles weren’t in yet and it doesn’t matter where the hole is in the drywall – these were perfectly within tolerance. The charges on their account are $8,898, which includes discounts for the electrical being only complete to rough-in, removes all charges for items we didn’t do, and discounts several items we did for free. This accounting would give them a refund of $1,102.   We have already refunded them this $1,102. They also wanted a refund for the door they claim was damaged and the drywall not being sanded. We gave that to them, too. We also discounted their lights. Total refunded to them already is $2,227.50, far more than we ever should have given them. The fact that they still want more money is incredible.