Bjelde Construction

Concerning the allegations brought by F [redacted] , please be advised that there are separate companies being touched on by these allegations [redacted] is an AZ company of design/architectural typeNo construction is performed under the name [redacted] Bjelde Construction is an AZ company that provides General Contracting services[redacted] and or [redacted] , (hereinafter referred to as consumers) first contacted [redacted] in December for the design services of [redacted] General Contracting through Bjelde Construction was not begun until January 2014, with a deposit/retainer remitted on 1/13/(I mention this only because the complaint states the “purchase date” with Bjelde Construction was “12/13/13,” which is inaccurate and in fact, even the retainer with [redacted] is actually dated by the consumers as 12/14/13.)To the specific items mentioned by the consumers:I) a-There was never an “ overcharge for substituted materials” and the choice of sliding glass door was changed many times by the consumersThis “overcharge” is only being brought up because the wholesale cost of the door by the manufacturer differs from the retail cost given to the consumers by the contractor.I) b-Any improper installation of said door was corrected appropriately without additional cost to the consumers.I) c-Since Bjelde Construction did not “make” the door in question, how can we be held accountable for the workmanship of the door? If however, this allegation is another way to discuss any initial improper installation of the door, please recall the previous statement and fact that any improper initial installation was corrected appropriately and accurately and without additional cost to the consumers and was approved by the consumers and the manufacturer at the time of correction.II) a-There was no improper planning or design of a block wall that somehow resulted in the loss of a city permitInstead, the consumers remitted payment for half the project on 2/19/14, and Bjelde Construction, in good faith, began the processes to install the sameHowever, in a 3/6/email (forwarding a prior 3/writing), the consumers wrote “we have decided not to continue the wall project.” Bjelde Construction ceased forward momentum on the project and have requested a formal cancellation which the consumers have never providedThe question is, how can Bjelde Construction be at fault for the 8/27/expiration of a block wall which the consumers requested be ceased months prior to the permit’s expiration? No, it is the consumers’ own fault that the permit expired when, after months they had not finished the block wall on their own, nor requested Bjelde Construction to resume working on it, nor contracted any other company to complete itAgain, the permit was not cancelled, but expired for lack of action on the consumers’ part and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged improper planning or designsIn fact, the consumers planted vegetation where the block wall was to be which would seem to coincide with their stated desire not to continue with it.II) b-No gas line was ever broken through by jackhammerInstead, in clearing the land for the block wall, BjeldeConstruction discovered a gas line to the neighboring property which had INCORRECTLY been put there by [redacted] ***Upon further inspection, [redacted] agreed to move the line AT THEIR OWN COSTSurely this fact alone is sufficient to see that [redacted] accepted responsibility of the incorrectly placed line and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of Bjelde Construction for discovering the line where it should not have been in the first place.II) c-The allegation that “ Bjelde removed building materials homeowners had purchased” is a libelous statement and categorically falseWe do not take this lightly and continued libel by the consumers will be met with every remedy afforded by lawBjelde Construction holds a high standard of integrity and relies on that integrity to obtain and keep new customersLibel and/or slander will not be toleratedIII) The allegation that Bjelde Construction refused to modify/cancel the contract for the pool within the day grace period is diversionary and falseNo cancellation of any type was requested, discussed or mentioned within the day cancellation periodThe pool contract was signed by the consumers on February 22, Within the contract, in accordance with the law, there are clear instructions for the cancellation of the contractIt states, “BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL: you many cancel this agreement by mailing a notice to the ContractorThe notice must say that you do not want the goods or services and must be mailed before midnight on the third business day after the date of the transaction.” This cancellation policy was not hidden from the consumers, but is directly above their signatures accepting the contractIn spite of their un-coerced acceptance, on 3/6/14, the consumers forwarded their previous3/2/email stating in item #a request for “an estimate of costs that we [they] would be responsible for if we [they] decide not to pursue the pool project.” At that time, the consumers were out of the countryThere was no request for cancellation and no cancellation mailed to us by the third business day following the signed contract, only the requestfor information if the consumers chose not to pursue the pool, in essenbreak the contractBy email, we responded to item #that, “The contract(s) have a 25% cancellation costsWith that said the price would be $17,627.11, per the contract.” The consumers were not happy with the contracted cancellation fees and through voice and email Bjelde Construction continued to request official cancellation paperwork and also gave the consumers an opportunity to offer their idea of a fair cancellation fee, even though the contract is very clear of the contractual cancellation feeTherewas much elaboration on the part of the consumers as to why they felt the cancellation fee shouldn’t apply as well asand accusatory emails and still, to date, some months after the contract was signed, we have never received an official cancellation request in accordance with the cancellation policy on the contract, nor any offer of the consumers’ idea of a fair cancellation fee, nor have we received an official cancellation on any of the contracts which the consumers stated they desired to cancelPlease understand, neither a verbal statement of a desire to cancel, nor an informal email will suffice to break the contractual agreement.Bjelde Construction has always been and continues to be willing and desirous to resolve this matter in an amiable mannerThis is in spite of the half-truths offered to us thus far, the lack of adherence to the contractual agreements signed by the consumer and the untruths being spread about our company by the consumers to other existing customers and now to tarnish our reputation with the Revdex.com.Please advise us of the next stepThank you, [redacted] Office Manager

To whom it may concern, I spent quite some time constructing an accurate response which touched on every point of these allegations, only to have your site error out when sending itI will attempt to do so again, but I'm now pressed for time*** ***Office Manager

Concerning the allegations brought by F* * ***, please be advised that there are separate companies being touched on by these allegations*** *** is an AZ company of design/architectural typeNo construction is performed under the name *** ***Bjelde Construction is an AZ company that provides General Contracting services.*** *** and or *** ***, (hereinafter referred to as consumers) first contacted *** *** in December for the design services of *** ***General Contracting through Bjelde Construction was not begun until January 2014, with a deposit/retainer remitted on 1/13/(I mention this only because the complaint states the “purchase date” with Bjelde Construction was “12/13/13,” which is inaccurate and in fact, even the retainer with *** *** is actually dated by the consumers as 12/14/13.)To the specific items mentioned by the consumers:I) a-There was never an “ overcharge for substituted materials” and the choice of sliding glass door was changed many times by the consumersThis “overcharge” is only being brought up because the wholesale cost of the door by the manufacturer differs from the retail cost given to the consumers by the contractor.I) b-Any improper installation of said door was corrected appropriately without additional cost to the consumers.I) c-Since Bjelde Construction did not “make” the door in question, how can we be held accountable for the workmanship of the door? If however, this allegation is another way to discuss any initial improper installation of the door, please recall the previous statement and fact that any improper initial installation was corrected appropriately and accurately and without additional cost to the consumers and was approved by the consumers and the manufacturer at the time of correction.II) a-There was no improper planning or design of a block wall that somehow resulted in the loss of a city permit Instead, the consumers remitted payment for half the project on 2/19/14, and Bjelde Construction, in good faith, began the processes to install the sameHowever, in a 3/6/email (forwarding a prior 3/writing), the consumers wrote “we have decided not to continue the wall project.” Bjelde Construction ceased forward momentum on the project and have requested a formal cancellation which the consumers have never providedThe question is, how can Bjelde Construction be at fault for the 8/27/expiration of a block wall which the consumers requested be ceased months prior to the permit’s expiration? No, it is the consumers’ own fault that the permit expired when, after months they had not finished the block wall on their own, nor requested Bjelde Construction to resume working on it, nor contracted any other company to complete itAgain, the permit was not cancelled, but expired for lack of action on the consumers’ part and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged improper planning or designsIn fact, the consumers planted vegetation where the block wall was to be which would seem to coincide with their stated desire not to continue with it.II) b-No gas line was ever broken through by jackhammerInstead, in clearing the land for the block wall, BjeldeConstruction discovered a gas line to the neighboring property which had INCORRECTLY been put there by ** ***Upon further inspection, ** *** agreed to move the line AT THEIR OWN COSTSurely this fact alone is sufficient to see that ** *** accepted responsibility of the incorrectly placed line and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of Bjelde Construction for discovering the line where it should not have been in the first place.II) c-The allegation that “ Bjelde removed building materials homeowners had purchased” is a libelous statement and categorically falseWe do not take this lightly and continued libel by the consumers will be met with every remedy afforded by lawBjelde Construction holds a high standard of integrity and relies on that integrity to obtain and keep new customersLibel and/or slander will not be tolerated.III) The allegation that Bjelde Construction refused to modify/cancel the contract for the pool within the day grace period is diversionary and falseNo cancellation of any type was requested, discussed or mentioned within the day cancellation periodThe pool contract was signed by the consumers on February 22, Within the contract, in accordance with the law, there are clear instructions for the cancellation of the contractIt states, “BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL: …you many cancel this agreement by mailing a notice to the ContractorThe notice must say that you do not want the goods or services and must be mailed before midnight on the third business day after the date of the transaction.” This cancellation policy was not hidden from the consumers, but is directly above their signatures accepting the contractIn spite of their un-coerced acceptance, on 3/6/14, the consumers forwarded their previous 3/2/email stating in item #a request for “an estimate of costs that we [they] would be responsible for if we [they] decide not to pursue the pool project.” At that time, the consumers were out of the countryThere was no request for cancellation and no cancellation mailed to us by the third business day following the signed contract, only the request for information if the consumers chose not to pursue the pool, in essenbreak the contractBy email, we responded to item #that, “The contract(s) have a 25% cancellation costsWith that said the price would be $17,627.11, per the contract.” The consumers were not happy with the contracted cancellation fees and through voice and email Bjelde Construction continued to request official cancellation paperwork and also gave the consumers an opportunity to offer their idea of a fair cancellation fee, even though the contract is very clear of the contractual cancellation feeThere was much elaboration on the part of the consumers as to why they felt the cancellation fee shouldn’t apply as well as and accusatory emails and still, to date, some months after the contract was signed, we have never received an official cancellation request in accordance with the cancellation policy on the contract, nor any offer of the consumers’ idea of a fair cancellation fee, nor have we received an official cancellation on any of the contracts which the consumers stated they desired to cancelPlease understand, neither a verbal statement of a desire to cancel, nor an informal email will suffice to break the contractual agreement.Bjelde Construction has always been and continues to be willing and desirous to resolve this matter in an amiable mannerThis is in spite of the half-truths offered to us thus far, the lack of adherence to the contractual agreements signed by the consumer and the untruths being spread about our company by the consumers to other existing customers and now to tarnish our reputation with the Revdex.com.Please advise us of the next step.Thank you,*** *** Office Manager

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response 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.This reply to the response from [redacted] and Bjelde Construction dated 1/3/2015, uses the same numbering as earlier correspondence on this matter.  We received a copy of this response from Teresa Henderson, Revdex.com, on 3 February 2015.I a.)  Overcharge for replacement of living room (LR) window and master bedroom (MB) door purchase and installation:   The copy of the contract for this work that we have indicates a total charge of $15,675.15.  This total includes $907.50 for a short extension of our driveway the block wall for which Bjelde Construction was paid separately.  Our understanding of the cost for the sliding door substituted for the French door was that there was a substantial differences in price for the cost and installation of the sliding door, a difference in the thousands of dollars.  We have never seen from Bjelde Construction a detailed comparison of the relative cost of the two doors and their installation.  The estimates for the project included the cost of the doors and installation costs.  We disagree that we owe Bjelde Construction for this project or that the relative cost of the substituted door resulted on only a “…small overpayment.”  Our records indicate an overcharge of about $5,250, as indicated below:A cheaper MB sliding door was substituted for French doors originally planned for, at contractor’s advice.1. The homeowners paid $8,000 for project as of 02/17/2004. Estimated cost of project: $5,049.24 for window, $8,371.55 for master bedroom door, and $907.15 for a short block wall, plus $1,346.86 tax [9.4%]. Total estimated cost: $15,675.15.2. Homeowners paid an additional $7,000 toward cost with a check dated 2/22/2014.  Total paid by homeowners prior to purchase and installation:  $15,000.3. The contractor recommended and homeowners agree to less expensive MB door on March 4, 2014.4. The homeowners were informed that the cost of substituted door and installation was $3,864 on 4/2/2014.5. Actual cost of purchases and installation:  $5,049.24 (LR window) + $3,864 (less expensive MB door) = $8,913.24, plus tax (9.4%) totals:  $9751.08.6. Reimbursement Due to Homeowners:  $15,000 - $9,751.08 = $5,248.92.I b.) Inability to complete the proper installation of the LR window and MB door: The prolonged installation process (from 2 April to 8 May 2014) was frustrating and involved inconveniences for the homeowners. Contrary to the statement in the [redacted]/Bjelde comment, we expressed our dissatisfaction in a number of emails.  In our view, the installation was not completed until John Stevenson, the sales representative from Weathershield, the brand of door installed, and a Weathershield service technician resolved several of the inadequate installations attempts.II.) Cinder block wall along part of the west boundary: Regarding payments for planning, designing, and special engineering for the block wall, [redacted] was paid separately $1913.88 on 22 February for these services.  The homeowners paid the additional $3,200 as half-payment for the construction of the wall.  It seems that so little was done on the actual construction that some of the first payment should be reimbursed.The unexpected discovery of the serviceable [redacted] line in the wall trench was disconcerting to the homeowners and made us question continuing with the project.  Looking over plat views of our property, we found evidence that the gas line existed and were concerned that this had not been noted and taken into account during the project planning.  After canceling the project, we now are expending substantial time and funds to return the trenched area to its original condition.III. Inability and unwillingness to produce a plan within the homeowners’ budget for a residential pool and outdoor shower:  Our copies of the contracts for pool and outdoor shower construction mentioned in the response show three signatures.  The two homeowner signatures are followed clearly by the date of signature, 2/24/2014.   From mid-December 2013 to the end of February 2014, the homeowners worked with [redacted] on a design for a lap pool and outdoor shower on their property that could be constructed within their budget.  [redacted] charged and was paid for these planning efforts $2,846.30.  In January, 2014, [redacted] submitted cost estimates for the project.  At this point, the homeowners stated clearly that the initial version of his proposed budget were unacceptable. Throughout February, the homeowners expressed concern via emails, phone calls, and directly to [redacted] that his proposed budgets were beyond their budget.  He persisted in assuring the homeowners that he could reduce the price.On 2/24/14, the homeowners provided [redacted] with signed documents agreeing to two projects, the pool and an outdoor shower.  These documents were signed at his request only because the homeowners were told that without the signed documents, he would not be able to obtain from the [redacted] the permit necessary to begin work on a pool.  The homeowners recognized and reported to [redacted] and Bjelde Construction that the scope of work and administrative information in the documents was incorrect.  Specifically:· the proposed price for the work was not within the homeowners’ budget,· there was no completion date stated,· incorrect amount of Scottsdale tax to be charged,· errors regarding the homeowners’ contact information, and,· reduction in the number of water jets in spa area.The homeowners requested a version of the contract that addressed their concerns and corrected errors. Between 2/24 and 2/27 the homeowners emailed, phoned, and texted [redacted] and Bjelde Construction requesting revisions.Homeowners did not receive a corrected final version until February 28, 2014.  On the same day, the homeowners sent [redacted] and Bjelde Construction two emails describing changes that were necessary in the document and stressing questions from the homeowners about costs and features proposed in the both revised documents.On 1 March, at a meeting at the homeowners’ residence, [redacted] was told, firmly and definitively, that the projects were cancelled and that he should not continue his work on the pool or outdoor shower projects.  At the same meeting, [redacted] was paid 1,196.30 for his planning work on the pool and pool permits.From December, 2013 to the beginning of March, 2014, [redacted] and Bjelde Construction was paid in full for consulting services related to the proposed pool and outdoor shower projects. This should be adequate and appropriate compensation for the work.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response 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.The message below responds to the “Message from Business” sent to us by the Dispute Resolution Consultant, Revdex.com regarding our complaint (ID # [redacted]) against the Bjelde Construction Company, [redacted], and Mr. [redacted], who is also the principal of both companies.These comments are organized according the numbered points in the “Message from Business” text.I) a:  The consumers were charged  $8,371.55 for a more expensive door, a pair of French-style swinging door, which originally was planned for the Master Bedroom.  The consumers paid in advance for this door.  In the project execution, a substantially less expensive sliding glass door ultimately was selected and purchased.  Bjelde Construction did not reimburse the consumers the amount overpaid.  This is documented in the copies of emails in our documentation of our complaint.  I) b:  The installation of the door required several attempts by the Bjelde crew and weeks of adjustments to correct mistakes made in the various installation attempts.  The finishing work around the edges of the installed door was of poor quality, as documented in photos that accompany our original complaint.II) a:  The planning for the block wall certainly was defective in measurement, jackhammering an active gas line and incomplete.  It is beyond dispute that an active [redacted] gas line was hit and nearly ruptured by the crew digging the trench for the wall and its foundation. [redacted] rechecked for gas leaks over a period of time. Me. Bjelde’s planning and design, for which he charged the consumers, did not note the existence of the gas line, which is shown on plans and maps of the property.  His failure to note the line very nearly resulted in an explosion that may seriously injured the digging crew, or worse.II) b: The consumers paid [redacted] half of the estimated amount for construction of the block wall prior to the beginning of construction.  The project was halted after discovery of the gas line, lacking confidence in the execution of the project.   The consumers have not been reimbursed any of the $3,200 they paid ahead of construction and building materials purchased were taken without our permission. III) The document signed by the consumers on 24 February (not 22 February as alleged in [redacted] text) was signed, as emphasized in our original complaint, only at the instance of [redacted] that is was necessary for him to obtain the Scottsdale City permit for the pool on our behalf.  As our original complaint documents, we immediately brought to [redacted] attention inaccuracies and errors in the document, including the price which was above the amount we had insisted that the project must not exceed.  It was he who ignored the three day time line. [redacted] delayed giving us another draft version of the text until 28 February from [redacted] office.  One day later, 1 March in a meeting with [redacted] at our home we informed him verbally, firmly, and unambiguously that we did not wish to proceed with the project. At that time he accepted a check from us or all remaining work he had done for the pool (see copy of paid invoice). Regards,
[redacted]

Concerning the...

allegations brought by F[redacted], please be advised that there are 2 separate companies being touched on by these allegations. [redacted] is an AZ company of design/architectural type. No construction is performed under the name [redacted]. Bjelde Construction is an AZ company that provides General Contracting services.[redacted] and or [redacted], (hereinafter referred to as consumers) first contacted [redacted] in December 2013 for the design services of [redacted]. General Contracting through Bjelde Construction was not begun until January 2014, with a deposit/retainer remitted on 1/13/14. (I mention this only because the complaint states the “purchase date” with Bjelde Construction was “12/13/13,” which is inaccurate and in fact, even the retainer with [redacted] is actually dated by the consumers as 12/14/13.)To the specific items mentioned by the consumers:I) a-There was never an “ overcharge for substituted materials” and the choice of sliding glass door was changed many times by the consumers. This “overcharge” is only being brought up because the wholesale cost of the door by the manufacturer differs from the retail cost given to the consumers by the contractor.I) b-Any improper installation of said door was corrected appropriately without additional cost to the consumers.I) c-Since Bjelde Construction did not “make” the door in question, how can we be held accountable for the workmanship of the door? If however, this allegation is another way to discuss any initial improper installation of the door, please recall the previous statement and fact that any improper initial installation was corrected appropriately and accurately and without additional cost to the consumers and was approved by the consumers and the manufacturer at the time of correction.II) a-There was no improper planning or design of a block wall that somehow resulted in the loss of a city permit. Instead, the consumers remitted payment for half the project on 2/19/14, and Bjelde Construction, in good faith, began the processes to install the same. However, in a 3/6/14 email (forwarding a prior 3/2 writing), the consumers wrote “we have decided not to continue the wall project.” Bjelde Construction ceased forward momentum on the project and have requested a formal cancellation which the consumers have never provided. The question is, how can Bjelde Construction be at fault for the 8/27/14 expiration of a block wall which the consumers requested be ceased 5 months prior to the permit’s expiration? No, it is the consumers’ own fault that the permit expired when, after 6 months they had not finished the block wall on their own, nor requested Bjelde Construction to resume working on it, nor contracted any other company to complete it. Again, the permit was not cancelled, but expired for lack of action on the consumers’ part and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged improper planning or designs. In fact, the consumers planted vegetation where the block wall was to be which would seem to coincide with their stated desire not to continue with it.II) b-No gas line was ever broken through by jackhammer. Instead, in clearing the land for the block wall, BjeldeConstruction discovered a gas line to the neighboring property which had INCORRECTLY been put there by [redacted]. Upon further inspection, [redacted] agreed to move the line AT THEIR OWN COST. Surely this fact alone is sufficient to see that [redacted] accepted responsibility of the incorrectly placed line and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of Bjelde Construction for discovering the line where it should not have been in the first place.II) c-The allegation that “ Bjelde removed building materials homeowners had purchased”  is a libelous statement and categorically false. We do not take this lightly and continued libel by the consumers will be met with every remedy afforded by law. Bjelde Construction holds a high standard of integrity and relies on that integrity to obtain and keep new customers. Libel and/or slander will not be tolerated. III) The allegation that Bjelde Construction refused to modify/cancel the contract for the pool within the 3 day grace period is diversionary and false. No cancellation of any type was requested, discussed or mentioned within the 3 day cancellation period. The pool contract was signed by the consumers on February 22, 2014. Within the contract, in accordance with the law, there are clear instructions for the cancellation of the contract. It states, “BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL: …you many cancel this agreement by mailing a notice to the Contractor. The notice must say that you do not want the goods or services and must be mailed before midnight on the third business day after the date of the transaction.” This cancellation policy was not hidden from the consumers, but is directly above their signatures accepting the contract. In spite of their un-coerced acceptance, on 3/6/14, the consumers forwarded their previous3/2/14 email stating in item #4 a request for “an estimate of costs that we [they] would be responsible for if we [they] decide not to pursue the pool project.” At that time, the consumers were out of the country. There was no request for cancellation and no cancellation mailed to us by the third business day following the signed contract, only the requestfor information if the consumers chose not to pursue the pool, in essence-to break the contract. By email, we responded to item #4 that, “The contract(s) have a 25% cancellation costs. With that said the price would be $17,627.11, per the contract.” The consumers were not happy with the contracted cancellation fees and through voice and email Bjelde Construction continued to request official cancellation paperwork and also gave the consumers an opportunity to offer their idea of a fair cancellation fee, even though the contract is very clear of the contractual cancellation fee. Therewas much elaboration on the part of the consumers as to why they felt the cancellation fee shouldn’t apply as well asfalse and accusatory emails and still, to date, some 9 months after the contract was signed, we have never received an official cancellation request in accordance with the cancellation policy on the contract, nor any offer of the consumers’ idea of a fair cancellation fee, nor have we received an official cancellation on any of the contracts which the consumers stated they desired to cancel. Please understand, neither a verbal statement of a desire to cancel, nor an informal email will suffice to break the contractual agreement.Bjelde Construction has always been and continues to be willing and desirous to resolve this matter in an amiable manner. This is in spite of the half-truths offered to us thus far, the lack of adherence to the contractual agreements signed by the consumer and the untruths being spread about our company by the consumers to other existing customers and now to tarnish our reputation with the Revdex.com.Please advise us of the next step. Thank you,[redacted]Office Manager

I have reviewed the response 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.
This reply to the response from [redacted] and Bjelde Construction dated 1/3/2015, uses the same numbering as earlier correspondence on this matter.  We received a copy of this response from Teresa Henderson, Revdex.com, on 3 February 2015.I a.)  Overcharge for replacement of living room (LR) window and master bedroom (MB) door purchase and installation:   The copy of the contract for this work that we have indicates a total charge of $15,675.15.  This total includes $907.50 for a short extension of our driveway the block wall for which Bjelde Construction was paid separately.  Our understanding of the cost for the sliding door substituted for the French door was that there was a substantial differences in price for the cost and installation of the sliding door, a difference in the thousands of dollars.  We have never seen from Bjelde Construction a detailed comparison of the relative cost of the two doors and their installation.  The estimates for the project included the cost of the doors and installation costs.  We disagree that we owe Bjelde Construction for this project or that the relative cost of the substituted door resulted on only a “…small overpayment.”  Our records indicate an overcharge of about $5,250, as indicated below:A cheaper MB sliding door was substituted for French doors originally planned for, at contractor’s advice.1. The homeowners paid $8,000 for project as of 02/17/2004. Estimated cost of project: $5,049.24 for window, $8,371.55 for master bedroom door, and $907.15 for a short block wall, plus $1,346.86 tax [9.4%]. Total estimated cost: $15,675.15.2. Homeowners paid an additional $7,000 toward cost with a check dated 2/22/2014.  Total paid by homeowners prior to purchase and installation:  $15,000.3. The contractor recommended and homeowners agree to less expensive MB door on March 4, 2014.4. The homeowners were informed that the cost of substituted door and installation was $3,864 on 4/2/2014.5. Actual cost of purchases and installation:  $5,049.24 (LR window) + $3,864 (less expensive MB door) = $8,913.24, plus tax (9.4%) totals:  $9751.08.6. Reimbursement Due to Homeowners:  $15,000 - $9,751.08 = $5,248.92.I b.) Inability to complete the proper installation of the LR window and MB door: The prolonged installation process (from 2 April to 8 May 2014) was frustrating and involved inconveniences for the homeowners. Contrary to the statement in the [redacted]/Bjelde comment, we expressed our dissatisfaction in a number of emails.  In our view, the installation was not completed until John Stevenson, the sales representative from Weathershield, the brand of door installed, and a Weathershield service technician resolved several of the inadequate installations attempts.II.) Cinder block wall along part of the west boundary: Regarding payments for planning, designing, and special engineering for the block wall, [redacted] was paid separately $1913.88 on 22 February for these services.  The homeowners paid the additional $3,200 as half-payment for the construction of the wall.  It seems that so little was done on the actual construction that some of the first payment should be reimbursed.The unexpected discovery of the serviceable [redacted] line in the wall trench was disconcerting to the homeowners and made us question continuing with the project.  Looking over plat views of our property, we found evidence that the gas line existed and were concerned that this had not been noted and taken into account during the project planning.  After canceling the project, we now are expending substantial time and funds to return the trenched area to its original condition.III. Inability and unwillingness to produce a plan within the homeowners’ budget for a residential pool and outdoor shower:  Our copies of the contracts for pool and outdoor shower construction mentioned in the response show three signatures.  The two homeowner signatures are followed clearly by the date of signature, 2/24/2014.   From mid-December 2013 to the end of February 2014, the homeowners worked with [redacted] on a design for a lap pool and outdoor shower on their property that could be constructed within their budget.  [redacted] charged and was paid for these planning efforts $2,846.30.  In January, 2014, [redacted] submitted cost estimates for the project.  At this point, the homeowners stated clearly that the initial version of his proposed budget were unacceptable. Throughout February, the homeowners expressed concern via emails, phone calls, and directly to [redacted] that his proposed budgets were beyond their budget.  He persisted in assuring the homeowners that he could reduce the price.On 2/24/14, the homeowners provided [redacted] with signed documents agreeing to two projects, the pool and an outdoor shower.  These documents were signed at his request only because the homeowners were told that without the signed documents, he would not be able to obtain from the [redacted] the permit necessary to begin work on a pool.  The homeowners recognized and reported to [redacted] and Bjelde Construction that the scope of work and administrative information in the documents was incorrect.  Specifically:· the proposed price for the work was not within the homeowners’ budget,· there was no completion date stated,· incorrect amount of Scottsdale tax to be charged,· errors regarding the homeowners’ contact information, and,· reduction in the number of water jets in spa area.The homeowners requested a version of the contract that addressed their concerns and corrected errors. Between 2/24 and 2/27 the homeowners emailed, phoned, and texted [redacted] and Bjelde Construction requesting revisions.Homeowners did not receive a corrected final version until February 28, 2014.  On the same day, the homeowners sent [redacted] and Bjelde Construction two emails describing changes that were necessary in the document and stressing questions from the homeowners about costs and features proposed in the both revised documents.On 1 March, at a meeting at the homeowners’ residence, [redacted] was told, firmly and definitively, that the projects were cancelled and that he should not continue his work on the pool or outdoor shower projects.  At the same meeting, [redacted] was paid 1,196.30 for his planning work on the pool and pool permits.From December, 2013 to the beginning of March, 2014, [redacted] and Bjelde Construction was paid in full for consulting services related to the proposed pool and outdoor shower projects. This should be adequate and appropriate compensation for the work.

Regards,

I have reviewed the response 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.The message below responds to the “Message from Business” sent to us by the Dispute Resolution Consultant, Revdex.com regarding our complaint (ID # [redacted]) against the Bjelde Construction Company, [redacted], and Mr. [redacted], who is also the principal of both companies.
These comments are organized according the numbered points in the “Message from Business” text.
I) a:  The consumers were charged  $8,371.55 for a more expensive door, a pair of French-style swinging door, which originally was planned for the Master Bedroom.  The consumers paid in advance for this door.  In the project execution, a substantially less expensive sliding glass door ultimately was selected and purchased.  Bjelde Construction did not reimburse the consumers the amount overpaid.  This is documented in the copies of emails in our documentation of our complaint.  
I) b:  The installation of the door required several attempts by the Bjelde crew and weeks of adjustments to correct mistakes made in the various installation attempts.  The finishing work around the edges of the installed door was of poor quality, as documented in photos that accompany our original complaint.
II) a:  The planning for the block wall certainly was defective in measurement, jackhammering an active gas line and incomplete.  It is beyond dispute that an active [redacted] gas line was hit and nearly ruptured by the crew digging the trench for the wall and its foundation. [redacted] rechecked for gas leaks over a period of time. Me. Bjelde’s planning and design, for which he charged the consumers, did not note the existence of the gas line, which is shown on plans and maps of the property.  His failure to note the line very nearly resulted in an explosion that may seriously injured the digging crew, or worse.
II) b: The consumers paid [redacted] half of the estimated amount for construction of the block wall prior to the beginning of construction.  The project was halted after discovery of the gas line, lacking confidence in the execution of the project.   The consumers have not been reimbursed any of the $3,200 they paid ahead of construction and building materials purchased were taken without our permission. 
III) The document signed by the consumers on 24 February (not 22 February as alleged in [redacted] text) was signed, as emphasized in our original complaint, only at the instance of [redacted] that is was necessary for him to obtain the Scottsdale City permit for the pool on our behalf.  As our original complaint documents, we immediately brought to [redacted] attention inaccuracies and errors in the document, including the price which was above the amount we had insisted that the project must not exceed.  It was he who ignored the three day time line. [redacted] delayed giving us another draft version of the text until 28 February from [redacted] office.  One day later, 1 March in a meeting with [redacted] at our home we informed him verbally, firmly, and unambiguously that we did not wish to proceed with the project. At that time he accepted a check from us or all remaining work he had done for the pool (see copy of paid invoice).
 Regards,[redacted]

Concerning the allegations brought by F[redacted], please be advised that there are 2 separate companies being touched on by these allegations. [redacted] is an AZ company of design/architectural type. No construction is performed under the name [redacted]. Bjelde Construction is an AZ company that provides General Contracting services.[redacted] and or [redacted], (hereinafter referred to as consumers) first contacted [redacted] in December 2013 for the design services of [redacted]. General Contracting through Bjelde Construction was not begun until January 2014, with a deposit/retainer remitted on 1/13/14. (I mention this only because the complaint states the “purchase date” with Bjelde Construction was “12/13/13,” which is inaccurate and in fact, even the retainer with [redacted] is actually dated by the consumers as 12/14/13.)To the specific items mentioned by the consumers:I) a-There was never an “ overcharge for substituted materials” and the choice of sliding glass door was changed many times by the consumers. This “overcharge” is only being brought up because the wholesale cost of the door by the manufacturer differs from the retail cost given to the consumers by the contractor.I) b-Any improper installation of said door was corrected appropriately without additional cost to the consumers.I) c-Since Bjelde Construction did not “make” the door in question, how can we be held accountable for the workmanship of the door? If however, this allegation is another way to discuss any initial improper installation of the door, please recall the previous statement and fact that any improper initial installation was corrected appropriately and accurately and without additional cost to the consumers and was approved by the consumers and the manufacturer at the time of correction.II) a-There was no improper planning or design of a block wall that somehow resulted in the loss of a city permit. Instead, the consumers remitted payment for half the project on 2/19/14, and Bjelde Construction, in good faith, began the processes to install the same. However, in a 3/6/14 email (forwarding a prior 3/2 writing), the consumers wrote “we have decided not to continue the wall project.” Bjelde Construction ceased forward momentum on the project and have requested a formal cancellation which the consumers have never provided. The question is, how can Bjelde Construction be at fault for the 8/27/14 expiration of a block wall which the consumers requested be ceased 5 months prior to the permit’s expiration? No, it is the consumers’ own fault that the permit expired when, after 6 months they had not finished the block wall on their own, nor requested Bjelde Construction to resume working on it, nor contracted any other company to complete it. Again, the permit was not cancelled, but expired for lack of action on the consumers’ part and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged improper planning or designs. In fact, the consumers planted vegetation where the block wall was to be which would seem to coincide with their stated desire not to continue with it.II) b-No gas line was ever broken through by jackhammer. Instead, in clearing the land for the block wall, BjeldeConstruction discovered a gas line to the neighboring property which had INCORRECTLY been put there by [redacted]. Upon further inspection, [redacted] agreed to move the line AT THEIR OWN COST. Surely this fact alone is sufficient to see that [redacted] accepted responsibility of the incorrectly placed line and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of Bjelde Construction for discovering the line where it should not have been in the first place.II) c-The allegation that “ Bjelde removed building materials homeowners had purchased”  is a libelous statement and categorically false. We do not take this lightly and continued libel by the consumers will be met with every remedy afforded by law. Bjelde Construction holds a high standard of integrity and relies on that integrity to obtain and keep new customers. Libel and/or slander will not be tolerated. III) The allegation that Bjelde Construction refused to modify/cancel the contract for the pool within the 3 day grace period is diversionary and false. No cancellation of any type was requested, discussed or mentioned within the 3 day cancellation period. The pool contract was signed by the consumers on February 22, 2014. Within the contract, in accordance with the law, there are clear instructions for the cancellation of the contract. It states, “BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL: …you many cancel this agreement by mailing a notice to the Contractor. The notice must say that you do not want the goods or services and must be mailed before midnight on the third business day after the date of the transaction.” This cancellation policy was not hidden from the consumers, but is directly above their signatures accepting the contract. In spite of their un-coerced acceptance, on 3/6/14, the consumers forwarded their previous3/2/14 email stating in item #4 a request for “an estimate of costs that we [they] would be responsible for if we [they] decide not to pursue the pool project.” At that time, the consumers were out of the country. There was no request for cancellation and no cancellation mailed to us by the third business day following the signed contract, only the requestfor information if the consumers chose not to pursue the pool, in essence-to break the contract. By email, we responded to item #4 that, “The contract(s) have a 25% cancellation costs. With that said the price would be $17,627.11, per the contract.” The consumers were not happy with the contracted cancellation fees and through voice and email Bjelde Construction continued to request official cancellation paperwork and also gave the consumers an opportunity to offer their idea of a fair cancellation fee, even though the contract is very clear of the contractual cancellation fee. Therewas much elaboration on the part of the consumers as to why they felt the cancellation fee shouldn’t apply as well asfalse and accusatory emails and still, to date, some 9 months after the contract was signed, we have never received an official cancellation request in accordance with the cancellation policy on the contract, nor any offer of the consumers’ idea of a fair cancellation fee, nor have we received an official cancellation on any of the contracts which the consumers stated they desired to cancel. Please understand, neither a verbal statement of a desire to cancel, nor an informal email will suffice to break the contractual agreement.Bjelde Construction has always been and continues to be willing and desirous to resolve this matter in an amiable manner. This is in spite of the half-truths offered to us thus far, the lack of adherence to the contractual agreements signed by the consumer and the untruths being spread about our company by the consumers to other existing customers and now to tarnish our reputation with the Revdex.com.Please advise us of the next step. Thank you,[redacted]Office Manager

Concerning the allegations brought by F[redacted], please be advised that there are 2 separate companies being touched on by these allegations. [redacted] is an AZ company of design/architectural type. No construction is performed under the name [redacted]. Bjelde Construction is an AZ company that provides General Contracting services.[redacted] and or [redacted], (hereinafter referred to as consumers) first contacted [redacted] in December 2013 for the design services of [redacted]. General Contracting through Bjelde Construction was not begun until January 2014, with a deposit/retainer remitted on 1/13/14. (I mention this only because the complaint states the “purchase date” with Bjelde Construction was “12/13/13,” which is inaccurate and in fact, even the retainer with [redacted] is actually dated by the consumers as 12/14/13.)To the specific items mentioned by the consumers:I) a-There was never an “ overcharge for substituted materials” and the choice of sliding glass door was changed many times by the consumers. This “overcharge” is only being brought up because the wholesale cost of the door by the manufacturer differs from the retail cost given to the consumers by the contractor.I) b-Any improper installation of said door was corrected appropriately without additional cost to the consumers.I) c-Since Bjelde Construction did not “make” the door in question, how can we be held accountable for the workmanship of the door? If however, this allegation is another way to discuss any initial improper installation of the door, please recall the previous statement and fact that any improper initial installation was corrected appropriately and accurately and without additional cost to the consumers and was approved by the consumers and the manufacturer at the time of correction.II) a-There was no improper planning or design of a block wall that somehow resulted in the loss of a city permit.  Instead, the consumers remitted payment for half the project on 2/19/14, and Bjelde Construction, in good faith, began the processes to install the same. However, in a 3/6/14 email (forwarding a prior 3/2 writing), the consumers wrote “we have decided not to continue the wall project.” Bjelde Construction ceased forward momentum on the project and have requested a formal cancellation which the consumers have never provided. The question is, how can Bjelde Construction be at fault for the 8/27/14 expiration of a block wall which the consumers requested be ceased 5 months prior to the permit’s expiration? No, it is the consumers’ own fault that the permit expired when, after 6 months they had not finished the block wall on their own, nor requested Bjelde Construction to resume working on it, nor contracted any other company to complete it. Again, the permit was not cancelled, but expired for lack of action on the consumers’ part and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged improper planning or designs. In fact, the consumers planted vegetation where the block wall was to be which would seem to coincide with their stated desire not to continue with it.II) b-No gas line was ever broken through by jackhammer. Instead, in clearing the land for the block wall, BjeldeConstruction discovered a gas line to the neighboring property which had INCORRECTLY been put there by [redacted]. Upon further inspection, [redacted] agreed to move the line AT THEIR OWN COST. Surely this fact alone is sufficient to see that [redacted] accepted responsibility of the incorrectly placed line and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of Bjelde Construction for discovering the line where it should not have been in the first place.II) c-The allegation that “ Bjelde removed building materials homeowners had purchased”  is a libelous statement and categorically false. We do not take this lightly and continued libel by the consumers will be met with every remedy afforded by law. Bjelde Construction holds a high standard of integrity and relies on that integrity to obtain and keep new customers. Libel and/or slander will not be tolerated.III) The allegation that Bjelde Construction refused to modify/cancel the contract for the pool within the 3 day grace period is diversionary and false. No cancellation of any type was requested, discussed or mentioned within the 3 day cancellation period. The pool contract was signed by the consumers on February 22, 2014. Within the contract, in accordance with the law, there are clear instructions for the cancellation of the contract. It states, “BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL: …you many cancel this agreement by mailing a notice to the Contractor. The notice must say that you do not want the goods or services and must be mailed before midnight on the third business day after the date of the transaction.” This cancellation policy was not hidden from the consumers, but is directly above their signatures accepting the contract. In spite of their un-coerced acceptance, on 3/6/14, the consumers forwarded their previous 3/2/14 email stating in item #4 a request for “an estimate of costs that we [they] would be responsible for if we [they] decide not to pursue the pool project.” At that time, the consumers were out of the country. There was no request for cancellation and no cancellation mailed to us by the third business day following the signed contract, only the request  for information if the consumers chose not to pursue the pool, in essence-to break the contract. By email, we responded to item #4 that, “The contract(s) have a 25% cancellation costs. With that said the price would be $17,627.11, per the contract.” The consumers were not happy with the contracted cancellation fees and through voice and email Bjelde Construction continued to request official cancellation paperwork and also gave the consumers an opportunity to offer their idea of a fair cancellation fee, even though the contract is very clear of the contractual cancellation fee. There  was much elaboration on the part of the consumers as to why they felt the cancellation fee shouldn’t apply as well as false and accusatory emails and still, to date, some 9 months after the contract was signed, we have never received an official cancellation request in accordance with the cancellation policy on the contract, nor any offer of the  consumers’ idea of a fair cancellation fee, nor have we received an official cancellation on any of the contracts which the consumers stated they desired to cancel. Please understand, neither a verbal statement of a desire to cancel, nor an informal email will suffice to break the contractual agreement.Bjelde Construction has always been and continues to be willing and desirous to resolve this matter in an amiable manner. This is in spite of the half-truths offered to us thus far, the lack of adherence to the contractual agreements signed by the consumer and the untruths being spread about our company by the consumers to other existing customers and now to tarnish our reputation with the Revdex.com.Please advise us of the next step.Thank you,[redacted] Office Manager

To whom it may concern, I spent quite some time constructing an accurate response which touched on every point of these false allegations, only to have your site error out when sending it. I will attempt to do so again, but I'm now pressed for time. [redacted]Office...

Manager.

I have reviewed the response 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.
This reply to the response from [redacted] and Bjelde Construction dated 1/3/2015, uses the same numbering as earlier correspondence on this matter.  We received a copy of this response from Teresa Henderson, Revdex.com, on 3 February 2015.I a.)  Overcharge for replacement of living room (LR) window and master bedroom (MB) door purchase and installation:   The copy of the contract for this work that we have indicates a total charge of $15,675.15.  This total includes $907.50 for a short extension of our driveway the block wall for which Bjelde Construction was paid separately.  Our understanding of the cost for the sliding door substituted for the French door was that there was a substantial differences in price for the cost and installation of the sliding door, a difference in the thousands of dollars.  We have never seen from Bjelde Construction a detailed comparison of the relative cost of the two doors and their installation.  The estimates for the project included the cost of the doors and installation costs.  We disagree that we owe Bjelde Construction for this project or that the relative cost of the substituted door resulted on only a “…small overpayment.”  Our records indicate an overcharge of about $5,250, as indicated below:A cheaper MB sliding door was substituted for French doors originally planned for, at contractor’s advice.1. The homeowners paid $8,000 for project as of 02/17/2004. Estimated cost of project: $5,049.24 for window, $8,371.55 for master bedroom door, and $907.15 for a short block wall, plus $1,346.86 tax [9.4%]. Total estimated cost: $15,675.15.2. Homeowners paid an additional $7,000 toward cost with a check dated 2/22/2014.  Total paid by homeowners prior to purchase and installation:  $15,000.3. The contractor recommended and homeowners agree to less expensive MB door on March 4, 2014.4. The homeowners were informed that the cost of substituted door and installation was $3,864 on 4/2/2014.5. Actual cost of purchases and installation:  $5,049.24 (LR window) + $3,864 (less expensive MB door) = $8,913.24, plus tax (9.4%) totals:  $9751.08.6. Reimbursement Due to Homeowners:  $15,000 - $9,751.08 = $5,248.92.I b.) Inability to complete the proper installation of the LR window and MB door: The prolonged installation process (from 2 April to 8 May 2014) was frustrating and involved inconveniences for the homeowners. Contrary to the statement in the [redacted]/Bjelde comment, we expressed our dissatisfaction in a number of emails.  In our view, the installation was not completed until John Stevenson, the sales representative from Weathershield, the brand of door installed, and a Weathershield service technician resolved several of the inadequate installations attempts.II.) Cinder block wall along part of the west boundary: Regarding payments for planning, designing, and special engineering for the block wall, [redacted] was paid separately $1913.88 on 22 February for these services.  The homeowners paid the additional $3,200 as half-payment for the construction of the wall.  It seems that so little was done on the actual construction that some of the first payment should be reimbursed.The unexpected discovery of the serviceable [redacted] line in the wall trench was disconcerting to the homeowners and made us question continuing with the project.  Looking over plat views of our property, we found evidence that the gas line existed and were concerned that this had not been noted and taken into account during the project planning.  After canceling the project, we now are expending substantial time and funds to return the trenched area to its original condition.III. Inability and unwillingness to produce a plan within the homeowners’ budget for a residential pool and outdoor shower:  Our copies of the contracts for pool and outdoor shower construction mentioned in the response show three signatures.  The two homeowner signatures are followed clearly by the date of signature, 2/24/2014.   From mid-December 2013 to the end of February 2014, the homeowners worked with [redacted] on a design for a lap pool and outdoor shower on their property that could be constructed within their budget.  [redacted] charged and was paid for these planning efforts $2,846.30.  In January, 2014, [redacted] submitted cost estimates for the project.  At this point, the homeowners stated clearly that the initial version of his proposed budget were unacceptable. Throughout February, the homeowners expressed concern via emails, phone calls, and directly to [redacted] that his proposed budgets were beyond their budget.  He persisted in assuring the homeowners that he could reduce the price.On 2/24/14, the homeowners provided [redacted] with signed documents agreeing to two projects, the pool and an outdoor shower.  These documents were signed at his request only because the homeowners were told that without the signed documents, he would not be able to obtain from the [redacted] the permit necessary to begin work on a pool.  The homeowners recognized and reported to [redacted] and Bjelde Construction that the scope of work and administrative information in the documents was incorrect.  Specifically:· the proposed price for the work was not within the homeowners’ budget,· there was no completion date stated,· incorrect amount of Scottsdale tax to be charged,· errors regarding the homeowners’ contact information, and,· reduction in the number of water jets in spa area.The homeowners requested a version of the contract that addressed their concerns and corrected errors. Between 2/24 and 2/27 the homeowners emailed, phoned, and texted [redacted] and Bjelde Construction requesting revisions.Homeowners did not receive a corrected final version until February 28, 2014.  On the same day, the homeowners sent [redacted] and Bjelde Construction two emails describing changes that were necessary in the document and stressing questions from the homeowners about costs and features proposed in the both revised documents.On 1 March, at a meeting at the homeowners’ residence, [redacted] was told, firmly and definitively, that the projects were cancelled and that he should not continue his work on the pool or outdoor shower projects.  At the same meeting, [redacted] was paid 1,196.30 for his planning work on the pool and pool permits.From December, 2013 to the beginning of March, 2014, [redacted] and Bjelde Construction was paid in full for consulting services related to the proposed pool and outdoor shower projects. This should be adequate and appropriate compensation for the work.

Regards,

Review: I. Overcharge for substituted materials, in this case, a sliding door, improper installation and poor workmanship. as confirmed by manufacturer.

II. Improper planning, design of block wall resulting in loss of city permit, and jackhammering gas line. Bjelde removed building materials homeowners had purchased, without homeowner reimbursement.

III. Bjelde's refusal to modify/cancel contract for pool within 3 day grace period.Desired Settlement: I. $5,248.92 refund due

II. $11,183.80 refund for materials removed without permission, planting replacement, erosion control, engineering survey

III. Formal Complaint due to unethical contract practices.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern, I spent quite some time constructing an accurate response which touched on every point of these false allegations, only to have your site error out when sending it. I will attempt to do so again, but I'm now pressed for time. [redacted]Office Manager.

Business

Response:

Concerning the allegations brought by F[redacted], please be advised that there are 2 separate companies being touched on by these allegations. [redacted] is an AZ company of design/architectural type. No construction is performed under the name [redacted]. Bjelde Construction is an AZ company that provides General Contracting services.[redacted] and or [redacted], (hereinafter referred to as consumers) first contacted [redacted] in December 2013 for the design services of [redacted]. General Contracting through Bjelde Construction was not begun until January 2014, with a deposit/retainer remitted on 1/13/14. (I mention this only because the complaint states the “purchase date” with Bjelde Construction was “12/13/13,” which is inaccurate and in fact, even the retainer with [redacted] is actually dated by the consumers as 12/14/13.)To the specific items mentioned by the consumers:I) a-There was never an “ overcharge for substituted materials” and the choice of sliding glass door was changed many times by the consumers. This “overcharge” is only being brought up because the wholesale cost of the door by the manufacturer differs from the retail cost given to the consumers by the contractor.I) b-Any improper installation of said door was corrected appropriately without additional cost to the consumers.I) c-Since Bjelde Construction did not “make” the door in question, how can we be held accountable for the workmanship of the door? If however, this allegation is another way to discuss any initial improper installation of the door, please recall the previous statement and fact that any improper initial installation was corrected appropriately and accurately and without additional cost to the consumers and was approved by the consumers and the manufacturer at the time of correction.II) a-There was no improper planning or design of a block wall that somehow resulted in the loss of a city permit. Instead, the consumers remitted payment for half the project on 2/19/14, and Bjelde Construction, in good faith, began the processes to install the same. However, in a 3/6/14 email (forwarding a prior 3/2 writing), the consumers wrote “we have decided not to continue the wall project.” Bjelde Construction ceased forward momentum on the project and have requested a formal cancellation which the consumers have never provided. The question is, how can Bjelde Construction be at fault for the 8/27/14 expiration of a block wall which the consumers requested be ceased 5 months prior to the permit’s expiration? No, it is the consumers’ own fault that the permit expired when, after 6 months they had not finished the block wall on their own, nor requested Bjelde Construction to resume working on it, nor contracted any other company to complete it. Again, the permit was not cancelled, but expired for lack of action on the consumers’ part and had nothing whatsoever to do with alleged improper planning or designs. In fact, the consumers planted vegetation where the block wall was to be which would seem to coincide with their stated desire not to continue with it.II) b-No gas line was ever broken through by jackhammer. Instead, in clearing the land for the block wall, BjeldeConstruction discovered a gas line to the neighboring property which had INCORRECTLY been put there by [redacted]. Upon further inspection, [redacted] agreed to move the line AT THEIR OWN COST. Surely this fact alone is sufficient to see that [redacted] accepted responsibility of the incorrectly placed line and there was no fault whatsoever on the part of Bjelde Construction for discovering the line where it should not have been in the first place.II) c-The allegation that “ Bjelde removed building materials homeowners had purchased” is a libelous statement and categorically false. We do not take this lightly and continued libel by the consumers will be met with every remedy afforded by law. Bjelde Construction holds a high standard of integrity and relies on that integrity to obtain and keep new customers. Libel and/or slander will not be tolerated. III) The allegation that Bjelde Construction refused to modify/cancel the contract for the pool within the 3 day grace period is diversionary and false. No cancellation of any type was requested, discussed or mentioned within the 3 day cancellation period. The pool contract was signed by the consumers on February 22, 2014. Within the contract, in accordance with the law, there are clear instructions for the cancellation of the contract. It states, “BUYER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL: …you many cancel this agreement by mailing a notice to the Contractor. The notice must say that you do not want the goods or services and must be mailed before midnight on the third business day after the date of the transaction.” This cancellation policy was not hidden from the consumers, but is directly above their signatures accepting the contract. In spite of their un-coerced acceptance, on 3/6/14, the consumers forwarded their previous3/2/14 email stating in item #4 a request for “an estimate of costs that we [they] would be responsible for if we [they] decide not to pursue the pool project.” At that time, the consumers were out of the country. There was no request for cancellation and no cancellation mailed to us by the third business day following the signed contract, only the requestfor information if the consumers chose not to pursue the pool, in essence-to break the contract. By email, we responded to item #4 that, “The contract(s) have a 25% cancellation costs. With that said the price would be $17,627.11, per the contract.” The consumers were not happy with the contracted cancellation fees and through voice and email Bjelde Construction continued to request official cancellation paperwork and also gave the consumers an opportunity to offer their idea of a fair cancellation fee, even though the contract is very clear of the contractual cancellation fee. Therewas much elaboration on the part of the consumers as to why they felt the cancellation fee shouldn’t apply as well asfalse and accusatory emails and still, to date, some 9 months after the contract was signed, we have never received an official cancellation request in accordance with the cancellation policy on the contract, nor any offer of the consumers’ idea of a fair cancellation fee, nor have we received an official cancellation on any of the contracts which the consumers stated they desired to cancel. Please understand, neither a verbal statement of a desire to cancel, nor an informal email will suffice to break the contractual agreement.Bjelde Construction has always been and continues to be willing and desirous to resolve this matter in an amiable manner. This is in spite of the half-truths offered to us thus far, the lack of adherence to the contractual agreements signed by the consumer and the untruths being spread about our company by the consumers to other existing customers and now to tarnish our reputation with the Revdex.com.Please advise us of the next step. Thank you,[redacted]Office Manager