Revdex.com:We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve our complaint. Throughout the course of the remodeling project, we met with the owner of Cincinnati Kitchens several times to express our concerns about the quality of their workmanship. Although the owner conveys that customer satisfaction is a priority, he declined to replace an unlicensed subcontractor after numerous, significant problems with workmanship. Furthermore, we sent two letters to the company in an attempt to clearly convey these issues and our expectations. While Cincinnati Kitchens has acknowledged that, at times, their workmanship fell below their own standards, they ultimately failed to execute our project “in a workmanlike manner according to standard industry practices” (as per our signed Estimate and Proposal), particularly as it related to plumbing and electrical codes. While the owner rests his reputation on thirty years in the business without complaint, we would not recommend this company.We would like to address a few points in the owner’s response to our complaint:The owner stated in his response to our complaint that we were unable to negotiate with him due to the absence of one of us during a meeting. This statement is false; we made every decision together.When contracting a remodeling company, we expected they would be qualified and obtain all necessary permits in order to complete the project to code. In the days leading up to the beginning of the project, we became concerned when the project manager was unfamiliar with the electrical specifications for the cooktop and wall oven, which led us to verify that a permit would be obtained for the project. Cincinnati Kitchens assured us that their extensive experience would ensure that all work would meet or exceed minimum code standards, and they dissuaded us from obtaining permits because it would cause "unnecessary delays." To the contrary, we hired licensed electricians and plumbers to correct Cincinnati Kitchens’ work, which caused unnecessary delays and additional expense to us.When Cincinnati Kitchens was unwilling to commence tearout of the existing kitchen in mid-January in order to make way for new wood flooring, we removed all cabinets and drywall. In doing so, we did not expand the scope of the project; to the contrary, the work remaining for Cincinnati Kitchens had been reduced, as acknowledged by Cincinnati Kitchens' subcontractor upon his initial arrival. Cincinnati Kitchens' claim that the scope of the work changed is misleading: We limited the scope of their work only after numerous, significant problems with workmanship.The itemized listing provided by Cincinnati Kitchens included a 34" pocket door. Prior to commencing the project, Cincinnati Kitchens project manager consented to our ordering of a pocket door frame. The frames are sold in 30" and 36" widths, so we ordered the 36" size. We produced proof for Cincinnati Kitchens of ordering a 36" wide, 6'8" tall product (model 203068PF). As clearly stated in the frame instructions, the frame must be cut to the appropriate size by the installer. There was no reluctance on the part of the subcontractor to install the door frame, nor was there any consideration given to the size of the adjacent cabinetry to be later installed. Cincinnati Kitchens installed the width of the frame without respect to the project plans, drywalled over the frame, began installing cabinets, and then discovered their installation was incompatible with the cabinets, which required reordering the base and wall cabinetry. Further, due to Cincinnati Kitchens' poor planning, a total of five cabinets were replaced or reordered throughout the course of this project (broken pantry, wrong finish on wall cabinet, narrower wall cabinet and base cabinet to fit space near pocket door, and a microwave cabinet that was not constructed to specification), which is the driving force for Cincinnati Kitchens overspending on materials for this project.With respect to granite installation: In mid-April, the Cincinnati Kitchens' selected granite fabricator came to our home to measure for installation but conveyed concern about supporting the overhang due to the layout of the cabinetry. Cincinnati Kitchens, itself, has been divided on how to address this topic: Fabricator and project manager each suggested a 3/4" subtop, while Cincinnati Kitchens' owner suggested steel supports in accordance with the standards established by the [redacted]. We did attempt to research options to safely complete the design of the project. This issue still remains unresolved.With respect to Cincinnati Kitchens' request for payment: On April 16, amidst ambiguity of how to properly support the granite countertops, we were presented with an invoice for a progress payment. At this time, the plumbing in our laundry room and bathroom was not completed to code; the electrical to the wall oven and clothes dryer was not completed to code; the electrical and plumbing to the kitchen island had not been completed at all; the microwave drawer, wall oven, hood exhaust, cabinetry hardware, toilet, undercabinet lighting, kitchen receptacles, pocket door, and baseboard were incomplete. On April 23, we conveyed to the project manager that their subcontractor was no longer welcome in our home due to the consistent problems with workmanship. However, we were willing to continue the project with Cincinnati Kitchens, provided qualified professionals were brought to bear. Cincinnati Kitchen’s project manager conveyed that they could hire someone else for electrical and plumbing, but that the challenged subcontractor would need to complete all other remaining work; alternatively, we could just settle up to this point and sever ties. With the project in complete disarray, we declined to make a progress payment at that time.On April 28, Cincinnati Kitchens met with us and suggested that we settle up by making a payment to $42,300. In exchange, Cincinnati Kitchens would see that the countertops and pocket door were properly installed, and the terms of the original agreement would be deemed satisfied. Given the reduced scope of the project, the additional costs incurred by us to restore electrical and plumbing when Cincinnati Kitchens' work did not meet plumbing and electrical codes, and the state of the project (e.g., microwave drawer, wall oven, dishwasher, disposer, cooktop, hood exhaust, cabinetry hardware, toilet, kitchen and bath sinks, undercabinet lighting, receptacles, tile backsplash, and baseboard not installed; cabinetry nail holes not filled and installer scuffs not touched up), we found Cincinnati Kitchens' offer unacceptable.Ten days later on May 9, we met with the owner again in an attempt to reach an amicable solution. Using Cincinnati Kitchens' own line-by-line estimate, we demonstrated that a reasonable value for the re-scoped project would be $37,749--pending a review of the actual cost of the floor tile and kitchen sink we selected (relative to the original allowances assumed in the estimate; owner and Client each expected these variances to be very small). Based on that mutual understanding, we made a progress payment to 90% of the updated estimate of $37,749 and expected Cincinnati Kitchens to arrange for installation of the granite and pocket door. On May 20, Cincinnati Kitchens made an about-face by producing another estimate of $44,870 for the same scope of work discussed on May 9. Cincinnati Kitchens’ latest proposal did not consider the alternative providers we paid to complete electrical, plumbing, floor tile installation, or the meaningfully reduced scope of work. Shortly thereafter, we filed a complaint with the Revdex.com, requesting Cincinnati Kitchens terminate our agreement and return to us $4,528 for revenues unearned. To date, we have paid Cincinnati Kitchens a total of $33,974 and incurred an additional $5,400 for flooring and debris removal, plumbing and electrical, tile installation, recessed lights, etc., which was all within the original scope of the $47,000 project. Further, we estimate that we will incur another $10,000-$12,000 to complete the project. Cincinnati Kitchens has consistently underestimated the complexity of this project, risking great damage to our property and Cincinnati Kitchens' reputation. Their June 24 response did not address our request to terminate the contract and return $4,528 for revenues unearned.We met with the owner of Cincinnati Kitchens on July 3, at which time we again sought but failed to reach an amicable solution. As per our signed Estimate and Proposal from Cincinnati Kitchens, this dispute cannot be resolved through negotiation, so we are requesting a third-party arbitrator to be furnished by the Revdex.com.
Revdex.com:We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve our complaint. Throughout the course of the remodeling project, we met with the owner of Cincinnati Kitchens several times to express our concerns about the quality of their workmanship. Although the owner conveys that customer satisfaction is a priority, he declined to replace an unlicensed subcontractor after numerous, significant problems with workmanship. Furthermore, we sent two letters to the company in an attempt to clearly convey these issues and our expectations. While Cincinnati Kitchens has acknowledged that, at times, their workmanship fell below their own standards, they ultimately failed to execute our project “in a workmanlike manner according to standard industry practices” (as per our signed Estimate and Proposal), particularly as it related to plumbing and electrical codes. While the owner rests his reputation on thirty years in the business without complaint, we would not recommend this company.We would like to address a few points in the owner’s response to our complaint:The owner stated in his response to our complaint that we were unable to negotiate with him due to the absence of one of us during a meeting. This statement is false; we made every decision together.When contracting a remodeling company, we expected they would be qualified and obtain all necessary permits in order to complete the project to code. In the days leading up to the beginning of the project, we became concerned when the project manager was unfamiliar with the electrical specifications for the cooktop and wall oven, which led us to verify that a permit would be obtained for the project. Cincinnati Kitchens assured us that their extensive experience would ensure that all work would meet or exceed minimum code standards, and they dissuaded us from obtaining permits because it would cause "unnecessary delays." To the contrary, we hired licensed electricians and plumbers to correct Cincinnati Kitchens’ work, which caused unnecessary delays and additional expense to us.When Cincinnati Kitchens was unwilling to commence tearout of the existing kitchen in mid-January in order to make way for new wood flooring, we removed all cabinets and drywall. In doing so, we did not expand the scope of the project; to the contrary, the work remaining for Cincinnati Kitchens had been reduced, as acknowledged by Cincinnati Kitchens' subcontractor upon his initial arrival. Cincinnati Kitchens' claim that the scope of the work changed is misleading: We limited the scope of their work only after numerous, significant problems with workmanship.The itemized listing provided by Cincinnati Kitchens included a 34" pocket door. Prior to commencing the project, Cincinnati Kitchens project manager consented to our ordering of a pocket door frame. The frames are sold in 30" and 36" widths, so we ordered the 36" size. We produced proof for Cincinnati Kitchens of ordering a 36" wide, 6'8" tall product (model 203068PF). As clearly stated in the frame instructions, the frame must be cut to the appropriate size by the installer. There was no reluctance on the part of the subcontractor to install the door frame, nor was there any consideration given to the size of the adjacent cabinetry to be later installed. Cincinnati Kitchens installed the width of the frame without respect to the project plans, drywalled over the frame, began installing cabinets, and then discovered their installation was incompatible with the cabinets, which required reordering the base and wall cabinetry. Further, due to Cincinnati Kitchens' poor planning, a total of five cabinets were replaced or reordered throughout the course of this project (broken pantry, wrong finish on wall cabinet, narrower wall cabinet and base cabinet to fit space near pocket door, and a microwave cabinet that was not constructed to specification), which is the driving force for Cincinnati Kitchens overspending on materials for this project.With respect to granite installation: In mid-April, the Cincinnati Kitchens' selected granite fabricator came to our home to measure for installation but conveyed concern about supporting the overhang due to the layout of the cabinetry. Cincinnati Kitchens, itself, has been divided on how to address this topic: Fabricator and project manager each suggested a 3/4" subtop, while Cincinnati Kitchens' owner suggested steel supports in accordance with the standards established by the [redacted]. We did attempt to research options to safely complete the design of the project. This issue still remains unresolved.With respect to Cincinnati Kitchens' request for payment: On April 16, amidst ambiguity of how to properly support the granite countertops, we were presented with an invoice for a progress payment. At this time, the plumbing in our laundry room and bathroom was not completed to code; the electrical to the wall oven and clothes dryer was not completed to code; the electrical and plumbing to the kitchen island had not been completed at all; the microwave drawer, wall oven, hood exhaust, cabinetry hardware, toilet, undercabinet lighting, kitchen receptacles, pocket door, and baseboard were incomplete. On April 23, we conveyed to the project manager that their subcontractor was no longer welcome in our home due to the consistent problems with workmanship. However, we were willing to continue the project with Cincinnati Kitchens, provided qualified professionals were brought to bear. Cincinnati Kitchen’s project manager conveyed that they could hire someone else for electrical and plumbing, but that the challenged subcontractor would need to complete all other remaining work; alternatively, we could just settle up to this point and sever ties. With the project in complete disarray, we declined to make a progress payment at that time.On April 28, Cincinnati Kitchens met with us and suggested that we settle up by making a payment to $42,300. In exchange, Cincinnati Kitchens would see that the countertops and pocket door were properly installed, and the terms of the original agreement would be deemed satisfied. Given the reduced scope of the project, the additional costs incurred by us to restore electrical and plumbing when Cincinnati Kitchens' work did not meet plumbing and electrical codes, and the state of the project (e.g., microwave drawer, wall oven, dishwasher, disposer, cooktop, hood exhaust, cabinetry hardware, toilet, kitchen and bath sinks, undercabinet lighting, receptacles, tile backsplash, and baseboard not installed; cabinetry nail holes not filled and installer scuffs not touched up), we found Cincinnati Kitchens' offer unacceptable.Ten days later on May 9, we met with the owner again in an attempt to reach an amicable solution. Using Cincinnati Kitchens' own line-by-line estimate, we demonstrated that a reasonable value for the re-scoped project would be $37,749--pending a review of the actual cost of the floor tile and kitchen sink we selected (relative to the original allowances assumed in the estimate; owner and Client each expected these variances to be very small). Based on that mutual understanding, we made a progress payment to 90% of the updated estimate of $37,749 and expected Cincinnati Kitchens to arrange for installation of the granite and pocket door. On May 20, Cincinnati Kitchens made an about-face by producing another estimate of $44,870 for the same scope of work discussed on May 9. Cincinnati Kitchens’ latest proposal did not consider the alternative providers we paid to complete electrical, plumbing, floor tile installation, or the meaningfully reduced scope of work. Shortly thereafter, we filed a complaint with the Revdex.com, requesting Cincinnati Kitchens terminate our agreement and return to us $4,528 for revenues unearned. To date, we have paid Cincinnati Kitchens a total of $33,974 and incurred an additional $5,400 for flooring and debris removal, plumbing and electrical, tile installation, recessed lights, etc., which was all within the original scope of the $47,000 project. Further, we estimate that we will incur another $10,000-$12,000 to complete the project. Cincinnati Kitchens has consistently underestimated the complexity of this project, risking great damage to our property and Cincinnati Kitchens' reputation. Their June 24 response did not address our request to terminate the contract and return $4,528 for revenues unearned.We met with the owner of Cincinnati Kitchens on July 3, at which time we again sought but failed to reach an amicable solution. As per our signed Estimate and Proposal from Cincinnati Kitchens, this dispute cannot be resolved through negotiation, so we are requesting a third-party arbitrator to be furnished by the Revdex.com.