Colorado Foundation Systems LLC

Revdex.com: Please see the attached letter regarding the offer of arbitration Regards, [redacted] May 7, [redacted] *** Revdex.com SCounty Rd5, SteFort Collins, CO Via Email Re: Complaint ID [redacted] , Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms***, As you well know, I represent Colorado Foundation Systems (CFS), a member of the Revdex.com who is in a dispute with [redacted] over work performed by Colorado Foundation Systems on his homeMr [redacted] and CFS have attempted to handle their dispute with Mr [redacted] professionally and in good faith throughout their disagreement about CFS’s work and Mr [redacted] ’ refusal to pay the remaining $17,he owes to CFS As has been stated in previous correspondence, the alternative dispute resolution offered by the Revdex.com does not feel appropriate for the nature of this disputeAccordingly, CFS is declining the offer to mediate or arbitrate through the Revdex.com at this timeTo be clear, CFS is not unwilling to mediate its dispute with Mr [redacted] or use the Revdex.com in other instances, but it is unwilling to participate in the Revdex.com mediation process for this particular dispute since its not consumer initiatedHaving read your most recent letter about this dispute between CFS and [redacted] , its unfortunate to learn that the Revdex.com’s interests in offering mediation and arbitration services to its members - which I understand are normally fee-based notwithstanding the offer in this matter -appears to be in conflict with and adverse to the interests of its membersLikewise, its frustrating to learn that after over months of negotiating with Mr [redacted] and the Revdex.com about this dispute, CFS will lose its accreditation status and have its trust rating penalized without hearing any evidence on the matter and despite the fact that CFS has invested time and money in engaging the Revdex.com on this matter and is willing to use alternative dispute resolution outside of the Revdex.com process, as it was doing prior to Mr [redacted] unilaterally and without notice to CFS bringing the Revdex.com into the dispute Revdex.com: Complaint Response Complaint ID [redacted] Nonetheless, CFS and I appreciate your time and patience; we now better understand the Revdex.com model and process Please direct future correspondence about this matter to my officeSincerely,

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: - see attached response letter dated 12-8-12/8/response - Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] Mr [redacted] ’ response, through his attorney, is rejected in that; • He fails to addresses any of the issues raised by the complainant, • Does not include appropriate evidence and documents supporting the business’ position, and • Does not explain why any relief sought by the complainant cannot or should not be grantedIn my first complaint communication, I stated that the recent offer from Mr [redacted] and his attorney to simply “walk away” financially from these issues as certainly not being acceptable to me, and I’ll reiterate that hereThe offer is not acceptable, and that response does not need to come through an attorneyAs a consumer with a contract dispute with both Colorado Foundations Systems and [redacted] , both who are members of the Revdex.com and who have agreed to the Revdex.com Code of Business Practices, this complaint resolution process is a perfectly appropriate channel to be utilized to aid in reaching a more expedited and cost effective settlementMr [redacted] ’ attorney seems to claim special exemption status from Revdex.com settlement negotiations due to on-going “pre-litigation” communications; however to be clear, neither party in this contract dispute has initiated litigationIt would seem that Mr [redacted] has an obligation under the Revdex.com Code of Business Practices to promptly respond to and resolve complaints as an accredited Revdex.com business, using established Revdex.com guidelines and resourcesI’ve provided comprehensive details of my complaint with Mr [redacted] and his companies in my original communication, and will restate a few of the key points: • The purpose of the engagement of Mr [redacted] (who claimed to be a principle in both Colorado Foundation Systems and [redacted] companies) was to lift the foundation of my home by inches and lift the associated basement and garage concrete slabs at the same timeThe home’s foundation had been previously stabilized through the installation of over piers installed by a different companyMr [redacted] proposal included services provided by of his both companies, with the [redacted] process integral to and augmenting the process of lifting the foundation walls by lifting concrete slabs at the same timeIt was this combination of services, along with combined contracts and warranties provided by Mr [redacted] for both companies, that represented value to me and I based my contractor selection onThe statement by Mr [redacted] ’ attorney that I declined to allow [redacted] an opportunity to complete its services is simply not true• Without restating the lengthy list of various indications of lack of experience and competence (lacking knowledge that a contractor’s license and building permit were required for this work being key) on July 10, we mutually completed and signed a contract amendment document identifying specific items required of Mr [redacted] and his companies to constitute contract completion I was out of town on business the following week when Mr [redacted] called and left me a phone message saying he had accomplished a foundation lift of to inchesUpon returning home, the actual lift measurement was only ¾”, which can be independently verified• The additional piers installed by Mr [redacted] provide no benefit or value, and lifting the foundation by only ¾” does not constitute completion under the contract documentsThe claimed to inches of foundation lift by Mr [redacted] was falseThe transferrable warranties provided by Mr [redacted] have no value as well• Mr [redacted] also claimed to have photographs with measurements showing the lift accomplishment he claimed, but after attempting to get those photographs over an extended period of time and additional expense to me, he provided a series of job site photos, none of which included the claimed measurements or show any degree of foundation lift• Mr [redacted] also removed from the project a significant surplus of valuable material which was inappropriately ordered based on comprehensive soils reports provided to him, and material which has presumably been returned to his supplier for creditOur contract documents identified that an accounting of the material credits was to be provided, which it has not beenThrough the engagement of Colorado Foundation Systems and [redacted] , and their failure to provide contracted services and warranties, as well as Mr [redacted] making claims of foundation lifting success and photographic evidence of the same, I have lost (now including attorney’s fees) nearly $25,in cash reserves paid from my retirement savings, and have received no benefit in return I have previously presented a settlement proposal of a full refund of my $17,deposit, plus actual and estimated additional $4,in expenses for payment of fees and repairing damages, plus now an additional $3,in attorney’s fees for a total of $24, I’m open to settlement discussions directly with Mr [redacted] , or through the Revdex.com mediation and arbitration resources to expedite a timely resolution to this complaintAll documents, photographs, emails, and audio files referenced here are available for review Regards, [redacted]

Response contained in letter attached to this message [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] *** ATTORNEYS AT LAW [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] ***Revdex.com SCounty Rd5, SteFort Collins, CO [redacted] [redacted] January 22, [redacted] [redacted] * [redacted] [redacted] *** [redacted] Via Revdex.com Website Re: Complaint ID [redacted] , Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms***, As you know, my office represents Colorado Foundation Systems, LLC [hereinafter CFS], with whom [redacted] contracted for the installation at his property of helical piers to support the foundation of his homeThis letter is in response to the letter received from the Revdex.com dated January 9, in regards to a complaint filed by Mr [redacted] against CFSThe gist of the dispute is as follows: CFS was hired to install steel helical piers for a cost of $34,$17,was paid at the commencement of the job, and the remainder was to be paid upon completionAdmittedly, CFS incurred minor delays due to weather and a peculiar permitting situationUltimately, however, Mr [redacted] did not allow CFS to finish the job, although the bulk of the job (95%) was completed satisfactorily, safely and within the bounds of the home’s structural integrityAt this time, Mr [redacted] owes CFS $17,For his part, Mr [redacted] contests that he owes $17,In fact, he also claims that CFS owes him several thousand dollars in addition to the $17,in free work and labor to which he assumes he is entitled (i.ethe amounts claimed by Mr [redacted] exceed his initial $17,payment by several thousand dollars)As CFS has stated since the beginning of the Revdex.com complaint process, this matter is in litigationCFS does not intend, nor is it required, to participate in settlement negotiations through the Revdex.comAs you well know, the Revdex.com does not get involved in disputes that have escalated into matters requiring oversight by legal professionals and/or the legal systemMr [redacted] threatened legal actions against CFS and hired his own counsel months prior to the Revdex.com becoming involved in this matterAt this point, CFS’ position is that the dispute with Mr [redacted] is best resolved outside of the Revdex.com dispute resolution process given the particularities of the claims as well as the amounts involvedRelated thereto, CFS has no desire or intention to make the Revdex.com or its personnel witnesses in this case (although that may have happened already) or to jeopardize any privileges CFS may have with its counsel by discussing the rationale for its position in detail or the legal authority supporting its claims against Mr [redacted] Frankly, Mr [redacted] has not participated in settlement negotiations in good faithThis matter started with CFS making a demand for payment following Mr [redacted] refusing to pay his outstanding balance and intimidating CFS with legal actionAfter CFS made its demand for payment, Mr [redacted] Revdex.com - CFS v [redacted] January 22, Page of authorized his long-standing counsel to represent him in the dispute processCFS provided Mr [redacted] and his counsel dozens of photographs as well as a detailed position statement setting forth arguments supported by the facts, which was done in good faith and in an attempt to expeditiously and cost effectively resolve the disputeSome of the issues from which CFS developed said position statement include: Whether or not Mr [redacted] ’ measurements were accurate and/or made using the same methods CFS uses; The safety and structural limitations that prohibited CFS - and a prior company - from achieving the desired outcome of the work; While it is true CFS did not have a contractors license when it started the job, this was remedied immediately when it was discovered that a license would be requiredThe issue was that the City of [redacted] did not have a license category for contractors who install helical piers and therefore it was not clear that a contractor’s license would be required for CFS’ work for Mr [redacted] When CFS explained the scope of work to the City, Loveland’s building department immediately issued CFS and Mr [redacted] a contractor’s license to prevent further confusion and delay The vast majority of CFS’ work was completed; what was not completed was courtesy [redacted] (i.e., no charge to Mr [redacted] ) and minor repairs and touch-ups following installation of the helical piers The helical piers installed are functional and serve their intended purpose (arguably, they have increased the value of the property) The original contract stipulated that CFS would be the sole determiner of how high the foundation of Mr [redacted] ’ home could be lifted safely; however, Mr [redacted] attempted to interfere with that authority by placing CFS under duress by threatening to have his engineer withhold signing off on the job as completeThe intended purpose of said threat was so to compel Mr [redacted] into signing an arbitrary and unrealistic list, thereby restricting his professional judgment on matters related to safety and feasibilityIn addition to sending exhibits and explanations of the project to Mr [redacted] and his counsel, CFS has made several offers to settle this dispute (the most recent offer was made at the beginning of last week)These good faith efforts have been sabotaged by Mr [redacted] , who, without notifying CFS, asked his attorney to cease work on the matter before he could respond to CFS’ settlement offer and, then, secretly, under the cover of ongoing negotiations through counsel, filed a complaint with your office, the Revdex.comCFS perceives Mr [redacted] ’ negotiating tactics as unprofessional, unethical, underhanded, and unfoundedMr [redacted] ’ behavior has been so unusual and unpredictablethat it has become difficult to interpret the totality of his actions as anything but a concerted plan to pressure a good-natured and overly accommodating construction professional into foregoing fair compensation for his and his employee’s As you will recall, CFS did not know the truth until after it submitted what it believed was its only chance to respond to Mr [redacted] ’ unfounded claims in his original Revdex.com complaintHe was the one moved this matter into the realm of litigation by threatening to involve his attorney but now wants to abandon that process midway through Revdex.com - CFS v [redacted] January 22, Page of time, labor and expertiseThe sheer audacity of Mr [redacted] ’ continued demand of payment from CFS is astounding and delusionalIn summary, CFS has incurred significant damages as a result of Mr [redacted] ’ failure to pay for labor and materialsLikewise, CFS has incurred significant legal costs as a result of Mr [redacted] thinking that saving every nickel and dime is a game and that Mr [redacted] can be pressured into a 100% discountCFS takes this matter very seriously, has positioned itself to take advantage of certain legal remedies and strategies and has been collecting information about this project and Mr [redacted] to support any claims for relief it has and may pursueTo be clear, those remedies, and the positioning and due diligence therefor, are ongoingWhile settlement negotiations also have been ongoing, Mr [redacted] rejected CFS’ most recent settlement offer, which included an offer of money, knowing that it was a final offer to settle before further escalationGiven the preceding factors, and as has been stated repeatedly, CFS is not able to continue with the Revdex.com dispute resolution processIf Mr [redacted] wants to continue demanding compensation from CFS, then he will have to wait for his opportunity to do so in Court, in which case CFS will seek attorney fees under [redacted] ’s statute prohibiting frivolous, groundless and vexatious actions Sincerely, [redacted] *** [redacted] It is also worth noting that the failure to pay CFS in a timely manner meant that Mr [redacted] and CFS had to use company reserves to pay eight employees for days of labor

Re: Complaint ID [redacted] , Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms***, I am writing on behalf of my client, Colorado Foundation Systems ("CFS")This letter shall serve as CFS' response to Mr [redacted] ' most recent communication regarding the above-cited complaint with the Revdex.comCFS does not have much to add to what it has already communicated to the Revdex.com during this complaint process and, therefore, incorporate by reference its previous statementsHowever, CFS would like to reiterate the following points to Mr [redacted] : Mr [redacted] owes CFS $17,CFS does not see this matter as closed and will take every opportunity available to pursue payment of said $17,in courtRelated thereto, CFS sees this matter as actively in litigation, notwithstanding the fact that a complaint has not been filed or servedAccordingly, and as stated in our previous letter, it is expected that communications by and between the parties constitute confidential settlement negotiationsTherefore, it is inappropriate to use this venue for said negotiations, as the Revdex.com is not bound by confidentiality and expressly does not take on matters that are in litigation, regardless of the current stage of said litigationCFS is not obligated to use the Revdex.com for dispute resolutionCFS has engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with Mr [redacted] and his counselIt is unfortunate that Mr [redacted] continues to pursue a path that is disingenuous and substantially lacking in the good faith expected by honest businesses and clientsFinally, and as mentioned previously, CFS has made overtures to Mr [redacted] and his counsel that have been rejectedHowever, it is particularly telling that the last settlement offer made received no response from Mr [redacted] ' counselUpon CFS' inquiry into Revdex.com: 2'd Complaint Response from Colorado Foundation Systems Complaint ID [redacted] the reason for the lack of response, CFS' counsel was informed that Mr [redacted] ' attorney was no longer authorized to work on the matterGiven the preceding points, CFS respectfully requests that the Revdex.com, as well as Mr [redacted] , respect the wishes of CFS, as well as its counsel, to continue engagement on the matter outside of the Revdex.com process, since this matter is destined for the courts as long as Mr [redacted] continues to shirk his responsibilities and obligations to pay CFS and to engage in good faith settlement negotiations through that path already established prior to Mr [redacted] ' initiation of a complaint with the Revdex.comWe hope to hear from Mr [redacted] directly or through counsel so that we can resume the good faith settlement negotiations that were initiated months prior to the submission of the Revdex.com complaint and that Mr [redacted] has attempted to undermine by so doingSincerely,

Please see attached response*** ***Revdex.com SCounty Rd5, SteFort Collins, CO 80528Via Revdex.com Website Mailing Address:*** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** ***
*** *** ***
***February 17, 2015 Re: Complaint ID ***, Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms***, I am writing on behalf of my client, Colorado Foundation Systems (“CFS”)As you know, CFS and *** *** do not agree about various matters related to work performed on Mr. ***’ property in Loveland, ***, including the monies owed thereforThis letter shall serve as CFS’s final response on said dispute in the Revdex.com forum. CFS and Mr*** have made every effort to negotiate with Mr*** in good faithAt this time, however, CFS does not have any commentary or insights for the Revdex.com and Mr. *** beyond what has been put forward to Mr*** and his counsel and in this limited process to date. CFS is confident that your office is aware of its position on various items in dispute and likewise understands the rationale underlying the sameAs stated in CFS’ previous letter, the dispute is better suited for a forum other than the Revdex.com complaint process given the status of negotiations prior to Revdex.com’s involvement as well as the types of claims and counter-claims involved. Sincerely, *** * *** ***
*** *** ** ***

Revdex.com:
Please see the attached letter regarding the offer of arbitration
Regards,
[redacted]
May 7, 2015 [redacted] Revdex.com 8020 S. County Rd. 5, Ste. 100 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Via Email Re: Complaint ID [redacted], Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms. [redacted], As you well know, I represent Colorado Foundation Systems (CFS), a member of the Revdex.com who is in a dispute with [redacted] over work performed by Colorado Foundation Systems on his home. Mr. [redacted] and CFS have attempted to handle their dispute with Mr. [redacted] professionally and in good faith throughout their disagreement about CFS’s work and Mr. [redacted]’ refusal to pay the remaining $17,000 he owes to CFS.  As has been stated in previous correspondence, the alternative dispute resolution offered by the Revdex.com does not feel appropriate for the nature of this dispute. Accordingly, CFS is declining the offer to mediate or arbitrate through the Revdex.com at this time. To be clear, CFS is not unwilling to mediate its dispute with Mr. [redacted] or use the Revdex.com in other instances, but it is unwilling to participate in the Revdex.com mediation process for this particular dispute since its not consumer initiated. Having read your most recent letter about this dispute between CFS and [redacted], its unfortunate to learn that the Revdex.com’s interests in offering mediation and arbitration services to its members - which I understand are normally fee-based notwithstanding the offer in this matter -appears to be in conflict with and adverse to the interests of its members. Likewise, its frustrating to learn that after over 6 months of negotiating with Mr. [redacted] and the Revdex.com about this dispute, CFS will lose its accreditation status and have its trust rating penalized without hearing any evidence on the matter and despite the fact that CFS has invested time and money in engaging the Revdex.com on this matter and is willing to use alternative dispute resolution outside of the Revdex.com process, as it was doing prior to Mr. [redacted] unilaterally and without notice to CFS bringing the Revdex.com into the dispute.  Revdex.com: Complaint Response Complaint ID [redacted] Nonetheless, CFS and I appreciate your time and patience; we now better understand the Revdex.com model and process.  Please direct future correspondence about this matter to my office. Sincerely,

Response is attached as a PDF.
December 1, 2014 [redacted] Revdex.com 8020 S. County Rd. 5, Ste. 100 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Via Revdex.com Website Re: Complaint ID [redacted], Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms. [redacted], I...

am writing on behalf of my client, Colorado Foundation Systems ("CFS"), who recently received notice that a Customer had filed a complaint against it with the Revdex.com. This letter shall serve as their response. First and foremost, CFS and I want to communicate that this Customer's complaint has been taken seriously from the beginning and continues to be regarded in that way. Second, and as was noted in the Customer's complaint, CFS retained counsel to address a dispute concerning the Customer's failure to pay outstanding amounts owed for construction services and materials. Related thereto, CFS' counsel has exchanged correspondence and supporting documentation with the Customer's counsel on several occasions. Currently, CFS is awaiting a response to its most recent settlement offer. Third, due to the unresolved status of this dispute, as well as pending pre-litigation settlement negotiations, at this time CFS is unable to engage this dispute using the Revdex.com dispute resolution process. CFS and the Customer have been using their respective counsel to resolve their respective claims. CFS respectfully requests that Revdex.com defer to that process, as well as the channels established for the same. Fourth, please be advised that CFS will use whatever means to which it is entitled to enforce payment obligations. Accordingly, any and all correspondence, reviews, and/or messages arising from the Revdex.com dispute resolution process, which CFS is not participating in, may become material evidence relevant to the claims of the parties.  Revdex.com: Complaint Response Complaint ID [redacted] Finally, CFS would like to clarify that the Customer had no agreement with [redacted], which was a subcontractor to Colorado Foundation Systems. [redacted] was brought in to provide certain complimentary services to the Customer. The Customer declined to allow [redacted] an opportunity to complete the services it provided. Consequently, the Customer's reference to [redacted] in this complaint is completely without justification or basis. Should Revdex.com decide to publish this Customer's complaint, which such action CFS believes is inappropriate and outside the Revdex.com's scope due to the pending status of pre-litigation settlement discussions, CFS requests that all reference to [redacted] be stricken from the same. Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: - see attached response letter dated 12-8-14
12/8/2014 response - Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] Mr. [redacted]’ response, through his attorney, is rejected in that; •    He fails to addresses any of the issues raised by the complainant, •    Does not include appropriate evidence and documents supporting the business’  position, and •    Does not explain why any relief sought by the complainant cannot or should not be  granted. In my first complaint communication, I stated that the recent offer from Mr. [redacted] and his attorney to simply “walk away” financially from these issues as certainly not being acceptable to me, and I’ll reiterate that here. The offer is not acceptable, and that response does not need to come through an attorney. As a consumer with a contract dispute with both Colorado Foundations Systems and [redacted], both who are members of the Revdex.com and who have agreed to the Revdex.com Code of Business Practices, this complaint resolution process is a perfectly appropriate channel to be utilized to aid in reaching a more expedited and cost effective settlement. Mr. [redacted]’ attorney seems to claim special exemption status from Revdex.com settlement negotiations due to on-going “pre-litigation” communications; however to be clear, neither party in this contract dispute has initiated litigation. It would seem that Mr. [redacted] has an obligation under the Revdex.com Code of Business Practices to promptly respond to and resolve complaints as an accredited Revdex.com business, using established Revdex.com guidelines and resources. I’ve provided comprehensive details of my complaint with Mr. [redacted] and his companies in my original communication, and will restate a few of the key points: •   The purpose of the engagement of Mr. [redacted] (who claimed to be a principle in both  Colorado Foundation Systems and [redacted] companies) was to lift the  foundation of my home by 9.5 inches and lift the associated basement and garage  concrete slabs at the same time. The home’s foundation had been previously stabilized  through the installation of over 20 piers installed by a different company. Mr. [redacted]  proposal included services provided by of his both companies, with the [redacted]  process integral to and augmenting the process of lifting the foundation walls by lifting  concrete slabs at the same time. It was this combination of services, along with  combined contracts and warranties provided by Mr. [redacted] for both companies, that  represented value to me and I based my contractor selection on. The statement by Mr.  [redacted]’ attorney that I declined to allow [redacted] an opportunity to complete  its services is simply not true. •   Without restating the lengthy list of various indications of lack of experience and competence (lacking knowledge that a contractor’s license and building permit were required for this work being key) on July 10, 2014 we mutually completed and signed a contract amendment document identifying specific items required of Mr. [redacted] and his companies to constitute contract completion.  I was out of town on business the following week when Mr. [redacted] called and left me a phone message saying he had accomplished a foundation lift of 6 to 6.5 inches. Upon returning home, the actual lift measurement was only ¾”, which can be independently verified. •   The additional piers installed by Mr. [redacted] provide no benefit or value, and lifting the foundation by only ¾” does not constitute completion under the contract documents. The claimed 6 to 6.5 inches of foundation lift by Mr. [redacted] was false. The transferrable warranties provided by Mr. [redacted] have no value as well. •   Mr. [redacted] also claimed to have photographs with measurements showing the lift accomplishment he claimed, but after attempting to get those photographs over an extended period of time and additional expense to me, he provided a series of job site photos, none of which included the claimed measurements or show any degree of foundation lift. •   Mr. [redacted] also removed from the project a significant surplus of valuable material which  was inappropriately ordered based on comprehensive soils reports provided to him, and  material which has presumably been returned to his supplier for credit. Our contract  documents identified that an accounting of the material credits was to be provided, which  it has not been. Through the engagement of Colorado Foundation Systems and [redacted], and their failure to provide contracted services and warranties, as well as Mr. [redacted] making false claims of foundation lifting success and photographic evidence of the same, I have lost (now including attorney’s fees) nearly $25,000 in cash reserves paid from my retirement savings, and have received no benefit in return.  I have previously presented a settlement proposal of a full refund of my $17,000 deposit, plus actual and estimated additional $4,528 in expenses for payment of fees and repairing damages, plus now an additional $3,390.50 in attorney’s fees for a total of $24,918.50.  I’m open to settlement discussions directly with Mr. [redacted], or through the Revdex.com mediation and arbitration resources to expedite a timely resolution to this complaint. All documents, photographs, emails, and audio files referenced here are available for review. 
Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I would like my complaint ID [redacted], to be handled through an Arbitration hearing with Revdex.com.
Regards,
[redacted]

1/30/2015
Revdex.com Claim ID number
[redacted]
The response to this
complaint is again rejected, and to again restate a few of the key facts and
address only a few of CFS’s attorney’s claims:
-         
CFS and its owner were
not licensed by either city or county to perform foundation work when he
contracted with me for this work. The confusing story and notion that
foundation repair work using helical piers is so cutting edge that the City of
[redacted] did not know how to categorize it for licensing purposes is absurd. Helical
piers have been employed in foundation repair work for centuries, and the city
has been licensing and permitting exactly this type of work for decades – and I
can document this fact.
-         
CFS and [redacted]
[redacted] did not complete the work agreed to in our signed contract
documents. The statement that I did not allow CFS or [redacted]
to complete their work is false, and I can document my efforts to allow the
businesses to make corrections to their failures after they left the job.
Rather than working to negotiate a settlement in good faith, the owner left the
meeting to “give it some thought”, only to engage his attorney and begin making
threats, rather than working through an agreed upon next-step of utilizing the
Revdex.com complaint resolution process to resolve our dispute.
-         
The business owner
demonstrated on numerous occasions his inexperience in performing foundation
lifting work including (but not limited to) not having knowledge that a
building permit and engineering plan were required.  There’s nothing
“peculiar” about needing a building permit to perform foundation repair work as
claimed.
-         
The business owner made
false claims in a recorded voice mail message of his foundation lifting
accomplishments “in the range of 6” to 6 1/2”, 
when the actual, independently verifiable lift was only ¾”.
-         
The business owner and
his attorney made false claims of possessing photographs and measurements
showing the foundation had been lifted, and have never provided any type of measurements.
In fact, the photos provided document that there was no measureable lift.
-         
In that the foundation
was not lifted as claimed and contracted for, the “transferrable warranties” provided
which were a valuable component of this project - are worthless.  
-         
In addition, the owner
significantly over-ordered valuable foundation piering materials, and then
removed it from my property without my authorization or providing the agreed
upon accounting and credit for that material.
-         
There is no documentation supporting the  claim that [redacted]’s work was
“complimentary” -  a position that was
introduced by the Owners attorney in his first threatening letter to me. This
[redacted] work was a value-added service integrated into the total contract,
and an augmentation to the success of the foundation lifting process. Both CFS
and [redacted] failed to deliver on their contracted work.
Without attempting to address the owner’s attorney’s range
of claims, I am simply labeling his response for the most part inaccurate
statements, and manipulation of facts and time tables. By way of example, CFS’s
owner first engaged his  attorney (prior
to my involving legal defense) to make written threats to me to file a
Mechanics Lien against  my property and
demanding an arbitrary amount of money. The attorney  went through the motions of having the lien documents
notarized and delivered to me by registered mail, but after the generous four
months allowed him by law, did not simply record the documents with
Larimer County records department (a few dollar expense). This made a very
useful tool to someone who might have a legitimate claim for payment no longer
available to him – clearly an acknowledgement they don’t have a legitimate and defensible
claim for money,or reason why a refund is not in order. The attorney’s claim of
“in litigation” is simply another attempt to use legal maneuvering to avoid
directly confronting the facts of this compliant through the Revdex.com as the owner
has agreed to do via the accreditation process in becoming a member of the Revdex.com.
I would simply let
the attorney’s letter stand as an example of his “good faith” negotiations
style, which does nothing to address the facts of this complaint or work toward
a fair settlement. I’m requesting once again that the Revdex.com dispense with these
automated back-and-forth messages and assist in coordination mediation between
the parties in an effort to bring this complaint to a close.
Cordially,
[redacted]

Response contained in letter attached to this message. 
[redacted]  *  [redacted] ATTORNEYS AT LAW [redacted] 
[redacted] 
[redacted] 
[redacted] 
[redacted]Revdex.com 8020 S. County Rd. 5, Ste. 100 Fort Collins, CO 80528[redacted] 
[redacted]January 22, 2015** [redacted] 
[redacted] 
[redacted] 
[redacted] 
[redacted]  Via Revdex.com Website Re: Complaint ID [redacted], Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms. [redacted], As you know, my office represents Colorado Foundation Systems, LLC [hereinafter CFS], with whom [redacted] contracted for the installation at his property of helical piers to support the foundation of his home. This letter is in response to the letter received from the Revdex.com dated January 9, 2015 in regards to a complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against CFS. The gist of the dispute is as follows: CFS was hired to install steel helical piers for a cost of $34,000. $17,000 was paid at the commencement of the job, and the remainder was to be paid upon completion. Admittedly, CFS incurred minor delays due to weather and a peculiar permitting situation. Ultimately, however, Mr. [redacted] did not allow CFS to finish the job, although the bulk of the job (95%) was completed satisfactorily, safely and within the bounds of the home’s structural integrity. At this time, Mr. [redacted] owes CFS $17,000. For his part, Mr. [redacted] contests that he owes $17,000. In fact, he also claims that CFS owes him several thousand dollars in addition to the $17,000 in free work and labor to which he assumes he is entitled (i.e. the amounts claimed by Mr. [redacted] exceed his initial $17,000 payment by several thousand dollars). As CFS has stated since the beginning of the Revdex.com complaint process, this matter is in litigation. CFS does not intend, nor is it required, to participate in settlement negotiations through the Revdex.com. As you well know, the Revdex.com does not get involved in disputes that have escalated into matters requiring oversight by legal professionals and/or the legal system. Mr. [redacted] threatened legal actions against CFS and hired his own counsel months prior to the Revdex.com becoming involved in this matter. At this point, CFS’ position is that the dispute with Mr. [redacted] is best resolved outside of the Revdex.com dispute resolution process given the particularities of the claims as well as the amounts involved. Related thereto, CFS has no desire or intention to make the Revdex.com or its personnel witnesses in this case (although that may have happened already) or to jeopardize any privileges CFS may have with its counsel by discussing the rationale for its position in detail or the legal authority supporting its claims against Mr. [redacted]. Frankly, Mr. [redacted] has not participated in settlement negotiations in good faith. This matter started with CFS making a demand for payment following Mr. [redacted] refusing to pay his outstanding balance and intimidating CFS with legal action. After CFS made its demand for payment, Mr. [redacted]  Revdex.com - CFS v. [redacted] January 22, 2015 Page 2 of 3 authorized his long-standing counsel to represent him in the dispute process. CFS provided Mr. [redacted] and his counsel dozens of photographs as well as a detailed position statement setting forth arguments supported by the facts, which was done in good faith and in an attempt to expeditiously and cost effectively resolve the dispute. Some of the issues from which CFS developed said position statement include: 1.   Whether or not Mr. [redacted]’ measurements were accurate and/or made using the same methods  CFS uses; 2.   The safety and structural limitations that prohibited CFS - and a prior company - from achieving  the desired outcome of the work; 3.   While it is true CFS did not have a contractors license when it started the job, this was remedied  immediately when it was discovered that a license would be required. The issue was that the City  of [redacted] did not have a license category for contractors who install helical piers and therefore  it was not clear that a contractor’s license would be required for CFS’ work for Mr. [redacted].  When CFS explained the scope of work to the City, Loveland’s building department immediately  issued CFS and Mr. [redacted] a contractor’s license to prevent further confusion and delay. 4.   The vast majority of CFS’ work was completed; what was not completed was courtesy [redacted]  (i.e., no charge to Mr. [redacted]) and minor repairs and touch-ups following installation of the helical  piers. 5.   The helical piers installed are functional and serve their intended purpose (arguably, they have  increased the value of the property). 6.   The original contract stipulated that CFS would be the sole determiner of how high the foundation of  Mr. [redacted]’ home could be lifted safely; however, Mr. [redacted] attempted to interfere with that  authority by placing CFS under duress by threatening to have his engineer withhold signing off on the  job as complete. The intended purpose of said threat was so to compel Mr. [redacted] into signing an  arbitrary and unrealistic to-do list, thereby restricting his professional judgment on matters related to  safety and feasibility. In addition to sending exhibits and explanations of the project to Mr. [redacted] and his counsel, CFS has made several offers to settle this dispute (the most recent offer was made at the beginning of last week). These good faith efforts have been sabotaged by Mr. [redacted], who, without notifying CFS, asked his attorney to cease work on the matter before he could respond to CFS’ settlement offer and, then, secretly, under the cover of ongoing negotiations through counsel, filed a complaint with your office, the Revdex.com.1 CFS perceives Mr. [redacted]’ negotiating tactics as unprofessional, unethical, underhanded, and unfounded. Mr. [redacted]’ behavior has been so unusual and unpredictable2 that it has become difficult to interpret the totality of his actions as anything but a concerted plan to pressure a good-natured and overly accommodating construction professional into foregoing fair compensation for his and his employee’s 1 As you will recall, CFS did not know the truth until after it submitted what it believed was its only chance to respond to Mr. [redacted]’ unfounded claims in his original Revdex.com complaint. 2 He was the one moved this matter into the realm of litigation by threatening to involve his attorney but now wants to abandon that process midway through.  Revdex.com - CFS v. [redacted] January 22, 2015 Page 3 of 3 time, labor and expertise.3 The sheer audacity of Mr. [redacted]’ continued demand of payment from CFS is astounding and delusional. In summary, CFS has incurred significant damages as a result of Mr. [redacted]’ failure to pay for labor and materials. Likewise, CFS has incurred significant legal costs as a result of Mr. [redacted] thinking that saving every nickel and dime is a game and that Mr. [redacted] can be pressured into a 100% discount. CFS takes this matter very seriously, has positioned itself to take advantage of certain legal remedies and strategies and has been collecting information about this project and Mr. [redacted] to support any claims for relief it has and may pursue. To be clear, those remedies, and the positioning and due diligence therefor, are ongoing. While settlement negotiations also have been ongoing, Mr. [redacted] rejected CFS’ most recent settlement offer, which included an offer of money, knowing that it was a final offer to settle before further escalation. Given the preceding factors, and as has been stated repeatedly, CFS is not able to continue with the Revdex.com dispute resolution process. If Mr. [redacted] wants to continue demanding compensation from CFS, then he will have to wait for his opportunity to do so in Court, in which case CFS will seek attorney fees under [redacted]’s statute prohibiting frivolous, groundless and vexatious actions. 
Sincerely, [redacted] 
[redacted] 3 It is also worth noting that the failure to pay CFS in a timely manner meant that Mr. [redacted] and CFS had to use company reserves to pay eight employees for days of labor.

Complaint: [redacted]
CFS’s response, through his
attorney, again is rejected in that;
·         It continues to not  addresses any of the issues raised by the
complainant,
·         Does not include appropriate evidence and documents
supporting the business’ position,
·         Does not explain why any relief sought by the
complainant cannot or should not be granted.
To restate a few of the key facts;
CFS and its owner were not licensed by either city or county to perform foundation
work when he contracted with me for this work, and CFS and [redacted]
did not complete the work agreed to in our signed contract documents.  The
business owner demonstrated on numerous occasions his inexperience in
performing foundation lifting work including (but not limited to) not having
knowledge that a building permit and engineering plan were required.  The business owner
made false claims of foundation lifting accomplishments, and false claims of
possessing photographs and measurements showing the foundation had been lifted
by 6” to 6 1/2”, when the actual verifiable lift measurement is only ¾”. In
that the foundation was not lifted as claimed and contracted for, the
“transferrable warranties” provided have no value.  In addition, a
significant amount of valuable material was removed from my property without
providing the agreed upon accounting and credit for that material.
In an effort to resolve this
issue, I recently submitted a settlement proposal directly to CFS’s owner and
attorney, and have not received a response. CFS’s owner and attorney have not
addressed any of the details of this complaint, and claim exemption to the Revdex.com
complaint resolution process, attempting to use “in litigation” as an excuse.
This is incorrect in that a complaint has not been filed nor notice served -
simply another tactic to avoid confronting the facts of this complaint. CFS’s
attorney questions my direction to my own attorney to temporarily not address
these issues – it’s simply a waste of a good attorney’s time and my money to
pursue talks through those fruitless channels. The Revdex.com has an appropriate forum
for directly resolving contract disputes between consumers and the
member-businesses, who have relied on the trust and good reputation that comes
with Revdex.com membership.
In that these exchanges with CFS’
owner and attorney continue to be unproductive and have not generated any results, I
am recommending that this process be moved to the next step, which I believe is
mediation between the parties, where we can review the facts of this complaint in an
independent environment.
Regards,
[redacted]

Re: Complaint ID [redacted], Colorado Foundation Systems LLC Dear Ms. [redacted], I am writing on behalf of my client, Colorado Foundation Systems ("CFS"). This letter shall serve as CFS' response to Mr. [redacted]' most recent communication regarding the above-cited complaint with the Revdex.com. CFS does not have much to add to what it has already communicated to the Revdex.com during this complaint process and, therefore, incorporate by reference its previous statements. However, CFS would like to reiterate the following points to Mr. [redacted]: 1. Mr. [redacted] owes CFS $17,000. 2. CFS does not see this matter as closed and will take every opportunity available to pursue  payment of said $17,000 in court. 3. Related thereto, CFS sees this matter as actively in litigation, notwithstanding the fact  that a complaint has not been filed or served. Accordingly, and as stated in our previous  letter, it is expected that communications by and between the parties constitute  confidential settlement negotiations. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use this venue for  said negotiations, as the Revdex.com is not bound by confidentiality and expressly does not take  on matters that are in litigation, regardless of the current stage of said litigation. 4. CFS is not obligated to use the Revdex.com for dispute resolution. 5. CFS has engaged in good faith settlement negotiations with Mr. [redacted] and his counsel. It is unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] continues to pursue a path that is disingenuous and substantially lacking in the good faith expected by honest businesses and clients. 6. Finally, and as mentioned previously, CFS has made overtures to Mr. [redacted] and his  counsel that have been rejected. However, it is particularly telling that the last settlement  offer made received no response from Mr. [redacted]' counsel. Upon CFS' inquiry into  Revdex.com: 2'd Complaint Response from Colorado Foundation Systems Complaint ID [redacted] the reason for the lack of response, CFS' counsel was informed that Mr. [redacted]' attorney was no longer authorized to work on the matter. Given the preceding points, CFS respectfully requests that the Revdex.com, as well as Mr. [redacted], respect the wishes of CFS, as well as its counsel, to continue engagement on the matter outside of the Revdex.com process, since this matter is destined for the courts as long as Mr. [redacted] continues to shirk his responsibilities and obligations to pay CFS and to engage in good faith settlement negotiations through that path already established prior to Mr. [redacted]' initiation of a complaint with the Revdex.com. We hope to hear from Mr. [redacted] directly or through counsel so that we can resume the good faith settlement negotiations that were initiated months prior to the submission of the Revdex.com complaint and that Mr. [redacted] has attempted to undermine by so doing. Sincerely,