Copper Creek Landscaping, Inc.

We have an agreement.  Please close this complaint.

Review: [redacted]

12/29/2013

We are in need of some help from your office regarding an overbilling issue from one of your members, [redacted] with Copper Creek Landscaping. While we do not wish to file a complaint and tarnish this otherwise reputable company’s record with the [redacted], communication has been severed with no fair resolution to date. If a fair resolution has not been achieved by January 15th please consider this a formal complaint with all of its implications.

The fact and timeline of the issue is as follows:

• [redacted] was hired in the summer of 2013 by our neighbors, [redacted] and [redacted] to landscape their front and back yards. A portion of a shared backyard chain link fence was to be realigned to generally follow the legal property line at our expense. The original fence had been put up some years before by a prior owner and had jogged the fence around some mature trees which had since been cut down. While all the property line documentation including plat maps and property stakes (and a subsequent survey by the [redacted]s) confirmed a straight property line, the [redacted]s reluctantly agreed to the realignment with the exception of an angled portion near the end of the fence run which would connect with an existing pole which was 4’ est. inside our portion of the property in order to save the removal of a large bush growing on the property line. [redacted] was informed of this property line issue by us and knew where we were claiming the line to be.

• We interviewed and hired [redacted] primarily because 1) one of the realignment stipulations from the [redacted]s was that the job was to be done by a professional and 2) we thought he would be in the best position to help mitigate any additional fence line issues by working with both parties. We received a bid for not only the fence rebuild but other issues related and agreed to the fence rebuild portion only ($675 + tax). This job was bid and presented to us, not through the [redacted]s; therefore we were [redacted]’s clients.

• Upon agreement from the [redacted]s we personally removed the fence and dug out the concrete in order to regrade the area and prep it prior to reinstallation. While this part of the job was in the bid [redacted] refused to discount the bill since his plan was to merely cut the poles off flush to the ground and leave the concrete as is. This did not meet our regrading requirements nor our expectations of a professional job but decided to not pursue the issue in order to preserve the peace.

• In August [redacted] personally dug five holes, filled them with cement and placed five new poles along the fence line agreed upon. This is what we are willing to pay [redacted] for.

• Upon inspection of the work completed [redacted] had, without our knowledge or permission, placed a second pole in the final hole which was to be used as an end

• When we researched his affiliation with the Revdex.com and I mentioned that it might be a good idea to get them involved, he immediately, and without our knowledge or approval began the process to establish a legally binding arbitration meeting through the Revdex.com. While this service is free to him at his enhanced service level it will cost us $125 with no ability to waive or defer. To us this was just another in a series of intimidation tactics designed on purpose to dissuade us from proceeding. From what I was able to gather from visiting the Revdex.com recently was that arbitration is not only extremely rare but is considered the last step after all other Revdex.com procedures are exhausted. I also learned that going directly to arbitration skips over the complaint process and even if the arbitration is in favor of the complainant then the member does not have a publicly disclosable complaint on their Revdex.com record. Although [redacted] claims that this strategy was recommended to him by the Revdex.com, we believe it was a purposeful ploy to avoid the complaint process with all of its negative implications. With no other recourse available to us at that time we paid the bill under duress and communicated that to [redacted] along with full payment.

• Once the check was cashed we again contacted [redacted] to negotiate the bill for the work actually completed. Two emails were ignored by [redacted] which offered our reasonable solution for payment of $250 (+ tax). This offer matched what another fencing company would charge to do ‘five holes and five poles’. After returning from Christmas vacation last night we once again contacted him by phone to confirm his receipt of the emails and get feedback form him on the adjustment proposed. He was not only insistent that there would be no adjustment he threatened to have a restraining order taken out if the “harassment” did not stop. His claimed his attorney was ready to proceed with that as well. Again, our impression is that this is meant to further intimidate us into dropping the issue.

• [redacted] is in full knowledge that we are proceeding down the complaint path with the Revdex.com and he did not take us up on a final offer to discuss appropriate payment.

Our request is simple for [redacted]:

1) Revise the billing to reflect actual work completed at $250.

2) Send revised billing [redacted]ed “Paid in full” to us along with a check for the difference of $472.98.

3) Attach a copy of the City of Spokane fencing permit for the job as we requested on 12/3/2013 for our records. This should be dated prior to the pole placement date.

Thank you in advance for your prompt and professional consideration of our request for help.

[redacted] & [redacted]

###-#### (wk)

###-#### (hm)Desired Settlement: see Attached document

Business

Response:

1-13-13

[redacted] #[redacted]

Dear Spokane Revdex.com,

At Copper Creek Landscaping, Inc. we strive to ensure the upmost happiness and satisfaction for all who are affected by our work. We work to diligently to ensure all our actions are guided by our core values to act with integrity and in accordance with the golden rule. In line with these values, we strive to deliver the utmost quality of product and services as well as a professional satisfying experience for all of our clients.

I response to the complaint there are some disagreements about the facts. I can provide further details of those disagreements and and witnesses if further clarification is needed.

I first met [redacted] and [redacted] at their residence on August 7th, 2013. Prior to that meeting I had already given a bid proposal to the [redacted]s (the [redacted]'s neighbor who had already contracted Copper Creek Landscaping for work) for the "Fence Re-alignment Project". However with my conversations with Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] they had indicated that their neighbor was to pay for this expense and I was to submit my bid to them. Therefore I had scheduled a meeting with them on the 7th of August 2013.

At the meeting on the 7th we discussed the bid proposal and the process in which how the project would work, time frame, etc... At that meeting we talked about the process of the fence realignment. We did talk about the fence post removal. I had indicated at that meeting that we would simply cut them off with a sawzall. They were ok with this and had no objection at the meeting regarding this process. I had estimated about 5 to 10 minutes total time in cutting down the posts (which would equate to a very minimal credit if any) In addition at this meeting the Shrams had asked me to bid out additional work such as installation of a new gate and stump removal (see exhibit 1 and exhibit 2). At this meeting they also asked us to do little grade work along the property line, which we did, at no additional expense to them. At the initial meeting it was discussed where the new fence line was going to be installed. From that initial meeting the location had probably switched about 4 to 6 times. I also outlined at this meeting and many times thereafter I am a contractor, not a mediator, not an attorney, not a land surveyor, not the go between. There were multiple times and many examples of when Mr. [redacted] had tried to bring me into the middle of the dispute between them and the [redacted]s.

On August 9, 2013 Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] accepted Copper Creeks bid proposal for the $675.00 plus tax (see exhibit #3). Please note that there was no discussion or never any discount offered to the [redacted]s on behalf of Copper Creek for removal of the posts.

The weeks that followed acceptance of the proposal led to multiple conversations of the fence realignment and the property line dispute. The fence location had changed so many times. I had recommended to both parties that we could leave a can of paint on site and let them paint out the location of the fence that was agreeable to both parties. At some point in the middle of September prior to the fence post installation I even met with Mrs. [redacted] on site to discuss the elevation/height of the fencing. Note that the fence post installation took place in mid-September not August as the complaint states. Later that day the fence posts were installed exactly to the painted line and the direction of Mrs. [redacted].

On the same day we were being installing fence posts at the [redacted] residence Copper Creek installed posts at the [redacted] Residence for their fencing as well. There is discussion in the complaint about a second hole by the final hole. The fence Mr. [redacted] is referring to is the [redacted]s fence. He had nothing to do with that project as it does not involve him. In addition this piece of property is pending a legal matter, so it maybe Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]s or it may be Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]s. Again my job is contractor not mediator. I hired and instructed to install a fence by the [redacted]s and that is what I did. In fact at the time of the installation you can see by exhibit #4 where Mr. [redacted]s talks about the professionalism displayed by myself and Copper Creek.

On December 3, 2013 I received correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] (see exhibit 5) threating to file a complaint with the Revdex.com. I thought it would be a good idea to make contact with the Revdex.com as I am an accredited member with no complaints on record to get the Revdex.com's opinion on the best way to handle the situation. On December the 4th I placed a call the Revdex.com office and talked with one of the employees at the Revdex.com. I wanted to be proactive with the potential complaint as well as resolving this as quickly and as fairly as possible. I gave the employee at the Revdex.com a run down as to what was going on. Based on the conversation the Revdex.com employee recommended the Arbitration processs. He explained to me the process and I agreed with him that was a good quick solution to be proactive and resolve this as fairly as possible. Please see exhibit #7 for proof of the call to the Revdex.com on December 4th, 2013. On December the 5th, 2013 (see exhibit 6) I offered Arbitration through the [redacted] per the Revdex.com recommendation to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]. They declined the recommendation of Arbitration, see exhibit #8.

When I received the check, I did observe the comments on the check so I did call the Revdex.com to see what the recommendation was on cashing the check (see exhibit 9 - proof that I did call the Revdex.com). They advised me to proceed with cashing it.

After I cashed the check I was hopeful that this was over (see exhibit #12 - email that he sent me the day he mailed a check, also exhibit 8, Mr. Shram says "I believe this will aloow us to move on". However Mr. [redacted] continued to call me. Finally I decided consult my legal counsel. He reviewed the documents and correspondence and advised me to do nothing. He told me to no longer to respond to any emails or phone calls or talk with Mr. [redacted]. He also did say that if he continued to call me we could pursue legal recourse against him. See exhibit 10 showing billing from attorney. I was not trying to intimidate anyone, as you can see I have been completely honest the whole way. I wanted this to be behind us. I gave a bid, they accepted my bid, we completed the work, we need to be paid per the bid. We offered Arbitration, the [redacted]s and they declined to participate in that process.

In closing I would say that the [redacted]s are unhappy with how their property line dispute is going with their neighbors the [redacted]s. It is my belief and others belief that they have wanted to short change Copper Creek from day one when we have been trying to help them. I do believe that the compensation is fair and they had every opportunity (more than 6 weeks) to seek additional bids and hire another contractor. Only after the work had been completed did they have any issues with the price quoted. Other's share a similar theory see exhibit #11 from the [redacted]s attorney. Also please note that Attorney Jennifer Jackson ([redacted]s Attorney) notes that the, "[redacted]s complaint is premature, inaccurate, and integrally related to the [redacted] boundary line dispute (a matter that is not appropriate for Revdex.com intervention)".

Thank you for your time and if you have any further questions regarding this complaint don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Copper Creek Landscaping.

###-###-####

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

[redacted]:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

Regards,

January 24, 2014

Attn: [redacted]

[redacted]

Re complaint #[redacted]

[redacted], in response to your 1-16-2014 letter and forward of [redacted]'s response:

While Mr. [redacted] has essentially reiterated the basic facts leading up to this case and added non relevant postulation from parties not materially related to the purpose of this complaint, he also has skillfully avoided actually answering the complaint and furthermore, blatantly lied twice in his response regarding the 'completion' of this job. The facts are clear and simple in this case.

1) The bid and associated price was for "total chain link rebuild".

2) Mr [redacted] merely dug five holes, graded a small area (in order to properly install poles), poured concrete, and set five poles.

3) No matter what the circumstances leading to his firing, he did not complete the job, we did. It is a consumer's right to terminate a relationship at any point, for any reason, and fairly compensate for the work actually completed including materials purchased ($250 + tax). Just imagine if we had agreed to the entire initial bid for stump removal and building a gate (close to $2,000 total) and had to terminate the relationship prior to completion. Would we be reasonably expected to pay the entire bill no matter how little work was actually completed?

4) Mr [redacted] verbally admitted that he did not complete the job and was willing to discount the bill by $100 in a phone conversation following the receipt of our initial billing. This was and remains not a proper discount given the amount of work that remained, let alone the additional materials cost incurred by us.

5) Although requested multiple times we still have not been provided a copy of the City of Spokane permit for work related to the fencing project at [redacted]ive.

We would hope that material deception in response to a legitimate complaint is not tolerated of a Revdex.com accredited business.

Our monetary and permit documentation resolution continues to remain unresolved. Please confirm receipt.

[redacted] and [redacted]

###-#### hm

###-#### wk

Business

Response:

February 1, 2014

Revdex.com of Spokane

152 S. Jefferson St. Ste 200

Spokane, WA 99201

RE: Complaint [redacted]

While there are a few disagreements about the facts of this case I do agree Mr. [redacted] that the facts are clear and simple. I have outlaid those in my previous response. Here is a brief recap:

• I met with the homeowner to discuss the project

• I gave a set bid price proposal

• The bid proposal was accepted and agreed to by both parties

• A major portion of the work was completed

? It was not finished due to the property line dispute pending legal litigation.

? However the agreement which I witnessed between Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] and Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] was to have the fence professionally moved 22-24” to the west and put back together to accommodate his lawnmower.

• I offered Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] arbitration per the recommendation of the Revdex.com and Copper Creek; they declined that option to fairly resolve this case.

• Mr. [redacted] states that he fired Copper Creek. This is true however termination occurred in late November 2013 during a harassing phone call from [redacted] and after the bill was past due.

I was willing upon good faith to put this matter to rest some time ago and I did offer a discount to the billing. However Mr. [redacted] refused my good faith effort to resolve this issue. I have since rescinded my offer due to his numerous harassing phone calls.

Unfortunately Mr. [redacted] just doesn’t have his facts straight by proof of his letters, response, and his past actions. He doesn’t even have the dates right in his original letter to the Revdex.com. We have been diligent in documenting the facts of this situation.

In response to his concern for a permit, the permit submission has been put on hold due to the fence line/property line litigation. In instances like this, in the past we have got the permit at the time of final completion. At this point Mr. [redacted] has incorrectly installed the mesh of the fence.

The letter from Attorney Jennifer Jackson says it best.

“The crux of the [redacted]’s Revdex.com Complaint against Copper Creek Landscaping is the [redacted]’s’ dissatisfaction with the relocated fence line. The [redacted]’s have no reasonable grounds to be dissatisfied with the fence line or the work performed to date by Copper Creek Landscaping.”

“The [redacted]s are presently attempting to resolve this fence line issue with the [redacted]’s by negotiating a Boundary Line Dispute Agreement. Until the issue is resolved, Copper Creek Landscaping is reasonably delaying completion of the remaining work required to reposition the fence, including reattaching the fencing material to the cyclone fence posts.”

“The [redacted]s have at all times been fully satisfied with the work performed by Copper Creek Landscaping. The enclosed Revdex.com Complaint from the [redacted]’s is premature, inaccurate, and integrally related to the [redacted] boundary line dispute (a matter that is not appropriate for Revdex.com intervention).”

I have witness multiple occasions of dishonesty and lack of integrity by Mr. [redacted] especially when observing the property line dispute with his neighbors the [redacted]s. He likes to play games and change the story and the facts around to whatever suites him or the occasion. It appears that he is, and has been doing this with his complaint. Again I can and would be willing to provide any additional details and witnesses’ if they are needed.

If the Revdex.com has any other questions or concerns please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Copper Creek Landscaping, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Revdex.com:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]

[redacted] and [redacted], It is our understanding from the last in office conversation that this is to be considered as the final round of communication with this portion of the initial complaint process. It is clear from Mr. [redacted]'s responses and personal attacks that he has no intention of entertaining, let alone meeting, any of our reasonable requests to resolve the complaint.

The complaint for 1) a refund of $472.98 (which is the difference in billing paid and our reasonable offer to pay $250 + tax for the installation of five poles) and 2) obtaining a City of Spokane fencing permit, stands unresolved.

The primary reason we have ended up in this complaint process is that Mr. [redacted] refused to reasonably discount the billing to reflect the actual work completed and finally threatened the placement of a lien on our home if we did not pay the entire bill, including interest, for services not fully rendered.

Unfortunately we are now forced to pursue legal action against Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]. [redacted], principals (as listed with L&I) with Copper Creek Landscaping Inc. for over billing and failure to procure the required permit. While we understand that the Revdex.com has a mediation process, this will likely not be fruitful since both parties have to be willing to work through the issues in order to come to an agreement. Mr. [redacted] has remained steadfast during this complaint process that he, in no way, wishes to accept responsibility for over billing and the lack of permitting. We wish to pay him a fair price for the work actually completed (five holes and five poles) and hold him accountable for the permit.

Please let us know what additional options are available through the Revdex.com and any details of the process.

Furthermore, aside from the unresolved complaint, we would ask that the Revdex.com consider the revocation of Copper Creek's status as an accredited business due to: ( 'Revdex.com Standards for Trust' in question are 3A, 5B, 6A2, 6B, and 8)

1) the unwillingness, from the date of our initial Revdex.com complaint, to exhibit any good faith towards actual resolution of the issue. The responses and justifications seem to be for the purpose of adding unneeded complexity and confusion to distract from the actual complaint (over billing and lack of permit).

2) the personal attacks towards us as customers in the complaint response process. This is certainly not an attribute expected from an accredited business we would assume.

3) the outright and purposeful lies (see initial response where he twice claims to have completed the project as bid and billed, also see second response where he finally admits that the project was not finished) during this complaint process regarding the over billing for work not completed. Mr [redacted] dug five holes and set five poles, he was fired and we completed the project over the next week or so having expended many hours. He billed us for the full bid quote "to rebuild existing chain link fence" which did not occur by him.

4) the admission of purposefully ignoring city code requirements by not obtaining the required permit prior to beginning the project. The permit, as of last week, was still not in place. You may contact Colleen Rugg (###-###-####) in the City of Spokane permit department for verification.

Please let us know if you plan to proceed with the above revocation consideration and what, if any timelines are to be expected.

[redacted] and [redacted]

###-###-#### wk

[redacted]

Business

Response:

March 6, 2014

Dear Mr. [redacted]:

In response to your (2) requests I am providing the following follow up and response.

A permit has been pulled for the [redacted] residence. A copy of that permit can be obtained through the City of Spokane.

Regarding the work completed at the [redacted] residence. Here is a list of the following:

1. Go purchase materials for new fence posts installation. Fence posts, concrete, etc…

2. Haul concrete for posts and fence posts down hillside for installation.

3. Hand excavate/dig holes for new fence posts installation – Note: rocky hard south hill soil

4. Mix concrete on site for fence post installation.

5. Set posts – properly space new fence posts and level new fence posts for installation.

6. Pour concrete into excavated holes and set posts.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have further questions regarding this project.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received, your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

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. For your reference, details of the offer we reviewed appear below.

1) We do not have a copy of the request letter sent to Copper Creek that preceded these responses so we can only make assumptions for the following statements. Please forward the letter to us for further review and additional comment. If our email dated 2/11/2014 was the correspondence sent and is being responded to, please confirm.

2) The permit appears to have been finally pulled and seems to be in good order as requested. The permit was only pulled after multiple requests through the Revdex.com complaint process and complaints submitted by us directly to Labor and Industries along with the City of Spokane permit department requesting that civil action be taken against [redacted] and Copper Creek for failure to perform the required permitting function.

3) While Mr. [redacted]'s six point detail accurately describes his work installing "five holes and five poles". it seems as though we must continually reiterate that the "work completed" was not the work bid nor an accurate reflection of the final billing which was the agreed upon price (plus usury) for completing the entire job. As stated before, Mr. [redacted] was fired from the job after installing five poles and we completed the remainder of the work. His threat of lien led our decision to pay the full bill rather than a reasonable amount we proposed for the actual work completed. It appears that Mr. [redacted] continues to 'respond' to the complaint without actually addressing the essence of the complaint:

He purposefully billed and threatened legal action for work not completed.

We reiterate, this deliberate obstruction of the Revdex.com complaint process and willful disregard for city code permitting requirements should not be considered in alignment with behavior expectations of an accredited business.

For Mr. [redacted] to honorably resolve this issue and save the time commitment from addressing the overbilling in small claims court, we continue to be willing to accept a refund payment for $472.98 along with an amended billing noted 'paid in full'.

Regards,

[redacted] and [redacted]

###-###-#### (wk)

[redacted]

Creative, Dependable and Professional best describes Copper Creek Landscaping Design and Construction. We renovated our front and backyard. We couldn't be more pleased Matt Barton and his crew took care of everything. They had great vision yet still were flexible with minor tweaks as needed. The project cost was fair and each step completed was done to the highest of standards. The crew with onsite foreman was on time every day and was great about tidying up. We get so many compliments, not only from those who remember how our yard looked before, but by those who have never seen it! The workmanship and attention to detail has been superb. I would not hesitate to recommend this solid team of dedicated professionals.