Baker Residential Limited Partnership

The customer's service request for responding to a claim that the dryer vent ductwork became unattached to the exterior dryer vent is covered by the Builders Limited Warranty during the first year of the warranty which expired on 10/**/2013.  The builder is not responsible for this claim after the warranty expiration date.

The warranty period for a dryer vent expired on 10/**/13.  The maintenance for a dryer vent is the homeowners responsibility.  When the service request was received in 2015, Baker Residential informed [redacted] that the warranty for that request had expired.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

We are going around in circles with this issue and not getting anywhere. Baker states that the dryer vent "became unattached" when it was never even attached in the first place. Basically Baker is stating that they are not responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, and in effect, not responsible for the substandard homes that they produce. If the issue is not resolved in this round of emails I will be forced to take legal action. 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

At this time, I have been contacted directly by Baker Residential Limited Partnership regarding complaint ID [redacted], however my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]I was contacted by phone by a Baker representative, he stated they would get back to me. As of this,...

they have not.
 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted]
 
[redacted]      [redacted]
            [redacted] [redacted] To Mid-Hudson Dispute Services:             This submission constitutes Baker’s reply to the December *, 2016, response of the Homeowner in connection with the Homeowner’s October **, 2016, Complaint. Capitalized terms retain the meaning ascribed to them in Baker’s original November **, 2016, response (the “Response”) to the Homeowner’s Complaint unless otherwise defined herein. As before, Baker provides this response solely to aid the Revdex.com in the investigation of the Complaint. This response is based upon Baker’s current understanding of the facts and the information received thus far, and Baker reserves the right to add to, delete, or otherwise amend this response.             The Homeowner alleges that Baker “offered to pay for half the amount to fix the roof” but declined to provide a confirmation of that alleged offer in writing. The reason for this is simple – Baker never agreed to provide a specified amount to the Homeowner to make any repairs, and there was, thus, nothing to confirm. Baker has requested that the Homeowner provide all information in connection with his purported roof repair and is willing to consider any information that the Homeowner provides. Baker has also discussed with the Homeowner options to defray the Homeowner’s costs in replacing repairing the roof of the House, if he elects to do so. However, Baker’s willingness to consider information the Homeowner provides, and to help him resolve his Complaint, is not the same as agreeing to pay a specified amount – which Baker is under no obligation to do in light of the terms of the Parties’ Agreement and Limited Warranty.             The Homeowner claims that a repair was scheduled for December *, 2016, from an estimate the Homeowner received and claims that Baker is obligated “for the expense to repair it.” However, as noted in Baker’s original Response, the fact is that the Homeowner signed a contract expressly providing the remedies for an alleged construction defect and that he simply does not wish to be bound by that contract. The parties’ Agreement and the Limited Warranty specifically provide that the Homeowner’s House is well outside the Limited Warranty period for repairs to flashing or the roof. As a result, Baker simply is not obligated to repair it. In this respect, the Limited Warranty is no different than any other warranty where an item breaks outside the warranty period – at the expiration of the Limited Warranty period, it is the Homeowner’s obligation to repair or pay for repairs to any alleged defects with the House, whether the alleged defects were originally part of the construction or subsequently developed.             While the Homeowner claims he “never received a warranty in the mail from Baker [R]esidential,” the Homeowner expressly acknowledged on several occasions that he did, in fact, receive a copy of the Limited Warranty: Prior to signing this Agreement, Purchaser has received a specimen copy of the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation that will be delivered to Purchaser at the Closing. . . . The warranties contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement and such manufacturers' warranties are the only warranties Purchaser will receive concerning the Premises. . . . . By signing this Purchase Agreement, Purchaser agrees to all the terms, conditions, restrictions, disclaimers, warranties, releases, procedures, and waivers contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation, including, without limitation, the obligation to submit all claims, disputes, and controversies by Purchaser to binding arbitration rather than a court. . . . Agreement ¶ 17 (emphasis added). The Homeowner likewise acknowledged in the Application that he did, in fact, receive the Warranty: I/we acknowledge that I/we have received, reviewed and understand the Builder’s Limited Warranty document (PWC # 107). I/we acknowledge that the builder cannot make representations as to its Builder’s Limited Warranty that contradict or are inconsistent with the terms and conditions state in its Builder’s Limited Warranty . . . . I/we acknowledge and agree that all disputes under and relating to the Builder’s Limited Warranty . . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organization. See Application (emphasis added). Despite the Homeowner’s statements to the contrary, there is no reasonable basis to suggest that he did not receive the Limited Warranty when the Homeowner acknowledged on multiple occasions that he did receive the Limited Warranty.             In sum, Baker is under no legal obligation to remedy any alleged defect with the Homeowner’s House – if any actually exists. The Homeowner received the Limited Warranty, agreed to be bound by the Limited Warranty, and now seeks to renege on that agreement. Nonetheless, Baker remains prepared to discuss an amicable resolution with the Homeowner as a good-faith gesture to resolve the Homeowner’s Complaint if and when the Homeowner provides all documentation and relevant information regarding the alleged repairs he commissioned on or about December *, 2016.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I would like to settle this with Baker residential, but for them to claim I was never offered a settlement by their representative, Deveraux H[redacted] is factually incorrect.  Mr H[redacted] stated Baker Residential would be willing to pay half the cost of the repair. I asked him to send me the agreement in writing and I never heard back. I even called Mr H[redacted] and left a voice message with him before the work was completed. I can send you my phone records that shows the call. Baker states they are willing to to do something for me but what exactly are they willing to do? 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: Dryer vent was never correctly installed. Upon inspecting the exterior end of the vent, it appears as though the vent was never properly connected near the external vent door. This has caused two years worth of dryer lint to accumulate between the first and second floor soffits. This is an extreme fire hazard, and due to this I have not been able to use my dryer. I have contacted Baker three times, and the last call I made was two months ago. I have never received a call back, after I was assured someone would "Look into the problem."Desired Settlement: I would like the dryer vent properly installed, and the soffit cleaned of all lint. Since the vent was never properly installed in the first place, the builder and/or HVAC company should be responsible.

Business

Response:

The warranty period for a dryer vent expired on 10/**/13. The maintenance for a dryer vent is the homeowners responsibility. When the service request was received in 2015, Baker Residential informed [redacted] that the warranty for that request had expired.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I'm aware that the one year warranty has expired, however this issue was never installed correctly in the first place. A dryer vent inside the wall of the house should not be able to become disconnected. It is apparent that the HVAC installer overlooked this detail when finishing the job. The builder needs to show accountability for the sub-contractors they choose to perform work on their construction sites.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

The customer's service request for responding to a claim that the dryer vent ductwork became unattached to the exterior dryer vent is covered by the Builders Limited Warranty during the first year of the warranty which expired on 10/**/2013. The builder is not responsible for this claim after the warranty expiration date.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

We are going around in circles with this issue and not getting anywhere. Baker states that the dryer vent "became unattached" when it was never even attached in the first place. Basically Baker is stating that they are not responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, and in effect, not responsible for the substandard homes that they produce. If the issue is not resolved in this round of emails I will be forced to take legal action.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Review: I purchased a home from Baker residential in November 2013. As part of a walkthrough of the home, it was discovered that there is a leaky sprinkler head in the basement. A contractor was set up to repair the sprinkler but did not show. I was left a voicemail by someone from Baker who informed me that the contractor would no longer be working with Baker and that they would find someone new, and would be in touch. I have yet to receive any word on the replacement, and my e-mails and calls have been ignored.Desired Settlement: I would like a contractor to repair the leaky sprinkler head.

Consumer

Response:

At this time, I have not been contacted by Baker Residential Limited Partnership regarding complaint ID [redacted].Sincerely,[redacted]