Cool Concrete Creations

Regarding the customer's statement please note the following:During the first meeting to discuss the concrete coating project on 06/25/12, the existing condition of the pool deck and rear patio concrete slabs in question was reviewed in detail.  This is a regular event where we are...

working with concrete slabs that are old, in poor condition or have other issues that could possibly impact the long term experience with the installation.  This includes a detailed presentation for what the customer can and should expect from the work included in the agreement.  There was approximately 40 LF of existing deck cracks.  The customer's claim that these are new cracks is false.  The methods to deal with these were explained in detail as well as options to improve the opportunity for any treated cracks not to re-appear.  There was even a brief discussion involving the removal and replacement of any questionable concrete slabs at an additional expense.  All of these options were rejected by the customer.  The dates provided by the customer are off by about one (1) week.  The first call to our office was on 04/07/14 and the discussion included a specific exchange as outlined above.  I also offered to come over that same afternoon and the customer declined as this did not work with her schedule and wanted to be present for the inspection.  The call ended with an agreement that if she wanted to be present for the inspection she should provide options with one or two days of lead time.  There was only one additional attempt by the customer to contact us where on 04/11/14 she called and left a message to get an update for when we could meet but unfortunately failed to provide any opportunities or options to schedule.  This is the only attempt to reach us by phone where a voice message was left.  In lieu of offering to meet with me she filed a complaint with the Revdex.com which was received on 05/06/14.  Finally on 05/07/14 she provided some options when she would be available to meet.  It took a month for the customer to provide options with her schedule for arranging a meeting.  Once she provided the options, an appointment was scheduled and concluded within one (1) week.  Her claims that she made multiple attempts to contact us without any response are false.We met on site on 05/12/14.  The hair line cracks were reviewed in detail and the entire project was thoroughly inspected.  Once again, it was explained to the customer what was likely occurring, why it was occurring and what if any options there were.  The customer expressed doubt regarding my explanation so I offered to remove any portion of the deck coating for inspection of the concrete beneath.  The only qualification that was attached was that if the concrete beneath was cracked or compromised we would expect to be reimbursed for the repair or restoration of the coating.  Otherwise, we would make any corrections at our expense.  The customer declined this offer of exploration.  A thorough inspection of the project developed no other issues of concern.  While the issues involving the cracks reviewed with the customer on that date may be of a valid concern for the customer, they have nothing to do with the scope of work included in the agreement and we have no responsibility or ongoing liability for them.  This inspection was documented in a letter to the customer dated 05/13/14.  A copy of this letter and some of the pertinent attachments have been included as well.  Original documents have been sent to the Revdex.com by US mail.I would appreciate formal acknowledgement of this response from the Revdex.com at your earliest convenience.  I also would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the Revdex.com process with someone responsible for this as soon as possible.Thanks.

Regarding the customer's statement please note the following:During the first meeting to discuss the concrete coating project on 06/25/12, the existing condition of the pool deck and rear patio concrete slabs in question was reviewed in detail.  This is a regular event where we are...

working with concrete slabs that are old, in poor condition or have other issues that could possibly impact the long term experience with the installation.  This includes a detailed presentation for what the customer can and should expect from the work included in the agreement.  There was approximately 40 LF of existing deck cracks.  The customer's claim that these are new cracks is false.  The methods to deal with these were explained in detail as well as options to improve the opportunity for any treated cracks not to re-appear.  There was even a brief discussion involving the removal and replacement of any questionable concrete slabs at an additional expense.  All of these options were rejected by the customer.  The dates provided by the customer are off by about one (1) week.  The first call to our office was on 04/07/14 and the discussion included a specific exchange as outlined above.  I also offered to come over that same afternoon and the customer declined as this did not work with her schedule and wanted to be present for the inspection.  The call ended with an agreement that if she wanted to be present for the inspection she should provide options with one or two days of lead time.  There was only one additional attempt by the customer to contact us where on 04/11/14 she called and left a message to get an update for when we could meet but unfortunately failed to provide any opportunities or options to schedule.  This is the only attempt to reach us by phone where a voice message was left.  In lieu of offering to meet with me she filed a complaint with the Revdex.com which was received on 05/06/14.  Finally on 05/07/14 she provided some options when she would be available to meet.  It took a month for the customer to provide options with her schedule for arranging a meeting.  Once she provided the options, an appointment was scheduled and concluded within one (1) week.  Her claims that she made multiple attempts to contact us without any response are false.We met on site on 05/12/14.  The hair line cracks were reviewed in detail and the entire project was thoroughly inspected.  Once again, it was explained to the customer what was likely occurring, why it was occurring and what if any options there were.  The customer expressed doubt regarding my explanation so I offered to remove any portion of the deck coating for inspection of the concrete beneath.  The only qualification that was attached was that if the concrete beneath was cracked or compromised we would expect to be reimbursed for the repair or restoration of the coating.  Otherwise, we would make any corrections at our expense.  The customer declined this offer of exploration.  A thorough inspection of the project developed no other issues of concern.  While the issues involving the cracks reviewed with the customer on that date may be of a valid concern for the customer, they have nothing to do with the scope of work included in the agreement and we have no responsibility or ongoing liability for them.  This inspection was documented in a letter to the customer dated 05/13/14.  A copy of this letter and some of the pertinent attachments have been included as well.  Original documents have been sent to the Revdex.com by US mail.I would appreciate formal acknowledgement of this response from the Revdex.com at your earliest convenience.  I also would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the Revdex.com process with someone responsible for this as soon as possible.Thanks.

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.I don't agree with all the points of the contractor's response concerning the history of this issue, but do not wish to engage in further email discussion. If we had the opportunity to start over, we would have chosen another contractor that values the customer and customer service, even after the ink dries and the work is completed.

Regards,[redacted]

Review: Cool Concrete Creations was very responsive to our initial request for a bid to resurace our pool deck and after much deliberation we eventually made the decision to hire the owner and his crew.

Now there are cracks developing in the deck. We have made multiple attempts to contact the owner of the company with a request that he come to our house at a time that we were also present to investigate the problem (and hopefully repair the cracks). He said he would call back to make an appointment to do that but we have yet to hear back from him. More than one month has passed since he said he would get back to us.Desired Settlement: We would like the owner of Cool Concrete Creations to return to our house to investigate the deck cracks and repair them.

Business

Response:

Regarding the customer's statement please note the following:During the first meeting to discuss the concrete coating project on 06/25/12, the existing condition of the pool deck and rear patio concrete slabs in question was reviewed in detail. This is a regular event where we are working with concrete slabs that are old, in poor condition or have other issues that could possibly impact the long term experience with the installation. This includes a detailed presentation for what the customer can and should expect from the work included in the agreement. There was approximately 40 LF of existing deck cracks. The customer's claim that these are new cracks is false. The methods to deal with these were explained in detail as well as options to improve the opportunity for any treated cracks not to re-appear. There was even a brief discussion involving the removal and replacement of any questionable concrete slabs at an additional expense. All of these options were rejected by the customer. The dates provided by the customer are off by about one (1) week. The first call to our office was on 04/07/14 and the discussion included a specific exchange as outlined above. I also offered to come over that same afternoon and the customer declined as this did not work with her schedule and wanted to be present for the inspection. The call ended with an agreement that if she wanted to be present for the inspection she should provide options with one or two days of lead time. There was only one additional attempt by the customer to contact us where on 04/11/14 she called and left a message to get an update for when we could meet but unfortunately failed to provide any opportunities or options to schedule. This is the only attempt to reach us by phone where a voice message was left. In lieu of offering to meet with me she filed a complaint with the Revdex.com which was received on 05/06/14. Finally on 05/07/14 she provided some options when she would be available to meet. It took a month for the customer to provide options with her schedule for arranging a meeting. Once she provided the options, an appointment was scheduled and concluded within one (1) week. Her claims that she made multiple attempts to contact us without any response are false.We met on site on 05/12/14. The hair line cracks were reviewed in detail and the entire project was thoroughly inspected. Once again, it was explained to the customer what was likely occurring, why it was occurring and what if any options there were. The customer expressed doubt regarding my explanation so I offered to remove any portion of the deck coating for inspection of the concrete beneath. The only qualification that was attached was that if the concrete beneath was cracked or compromised we would expect to be reimbursed for the repair or restoration of the coating. Otherwise, we would make any corrections at our expense. The customer declined this offer of exploration. A thorough inspection of the project developed no other issues of concern. While the issues involving the cracks reviewed with the customer on that date may be of a valid concern for the customer, they have nothing to do with the scope of work included in the agreement and we have no responsibility or ongoing liability for them. This inspection was documented in a letter to the customer dated 05/13/14. A copy of this letter and some of the pertinent attachments have been included as well. Original documents have been sent to the Revdex.com by US mail.I would appreciate formal acknowledgement of this response from the Revdex.com at your earliest convenience. I also would appreciate an opportunity to discuss the Revdex.com process with someone responsible for this as soon as possible.Thanks.

Consumer

Response:

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.

I don't agree with all the points of the contractor's response concerning the history of this issue, but do not wish to engage in further email discussion. If we had the opportunity to start over, we would have chosen another contractor that values the customer and customer service, even after the ink dries and the work is completed.

Regards,