Crupaintco

RE: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] 01/04/18RE: Facebook REview ("Cru Paint Co.") 01/01/18RE: HomeAdvisor Review(s) 01/06/& 01/10/18January 17th, 2018To Whom It May Concern:We apologize for the length and detail of the following factual account, but we have prepared a statement in anticipation of litigation, based on Complainant's remarks regarding a civil complaint and the vociferousness of her untrue and/or misleading statementsWe take great pride in our level of quality as well as customer service, and our clientele includes commercial accounts as well as ordinary homeowners, so we take all complaints very seriously and make every attempt to resolve disputes in a fair and equitable mannerWe are also acutely aware of the road difference in the quality and customer service of our competitors, and the presence of fraudulent or irresponsible contractors in the residential home improvement marketWe attempts to distinguish our brand not only through high quality and friendly service, but also by making out Service Agreements detailed and specific, so there is no confusion or feeling of being "double-crossed" by surprise surcharges that customers sometimes find with other painting contractorsWe do our best to educate homeowners about the painting process as well as our billing structure, and to maintain clear channels of communication throughout the processWe have had difficult customers before, but in this case it appears that the Complainant is engaging in essentially extortive behavior, after attempting to garner a "discount" by sabotaging our work effortsWe hope that our professionalism is evident in the manner in which we have at all times communicated respectfully with the Complainant, even as her complaints escalated to ludicrous and even criminal suspicionsThe Complainant should read the terms of her contract, retract her libelous statements, and pay her bill as soon as possible to avoid appropriate legal action.Service Agreement and Change OrderWe contracted with the Complainant to repaint the walls and ceilings of specific areas of her condominium, with a deadline of December 24th, 2017, so furnishings could be moved into her daughter's new home by Christmas EveAlthough many of our painters were unavailable due to the holidays, necessitating greater than usual demands on senior staff and management, we agreed to this deadline in order to meet our service promiseThe Complainant represented that the Property would be "unoccupied and unfurnished",and we were able to extend a labor-only discount of 20% ($USD) on that basis, because unfurnished dwellings are somewhat easier to paintComplainant signed a Service Agreement that specifically laid out the contours of the Project, and formalize the rights of the partiesIn a rare exception to standard policies, the Company allowed the Complainant herself to furnish paint for the walls and ceilings, in order to help her save money, and offered professional guidance on what to look for when stopping for paint; that Complainant purchased a lower-grade paint that recommended, ignoring Company's advice that the premium latex paint formulation wold have better "hide" power to cover existing colors.Complainant then requested a bid on painting white the existing dark brown trim and marching doors throughout the PropertyDetails of this Change Order are our in a series of SMS messages and emails, specifying separate pricing for primer and one coat of paint, especially due to the dramatic color change and the fact that the trim boards were sealed or varnishedCompany agreed to prorate the second coat, so that if a second coat, so that if a second coat was required only on a fraction of the trim or only on some of the doors, pricing could be be adjusted fairlyTo promote high customer satisfaction, the Company made a separate visit to paint two lengths of baseboard trim in the upstairs bathroom - on with a single coat, and the other with two coatsAfter seeing the sample time, the Complainant stated that her project was already over-budget, and requested only a single coat be applied in all areasComplainant did not disclose her intention to apply additional coats of paint herself, and did not properly inform the Company of her extraneous remodeling efforts, which were to take place during the course of the repaint Project, and which have all interfered greatly with the Company's expedient completion of its work.12/12/2017Complainant received keys to the Property on December 12th, and the Company was on-site that evening to pick up a spare key and inspect the PropertyWe were told it wold be necessary to wait until the 18th to begin painting, because the oft railing was due to be replaced with a knee wallAlthough this further compressed our work schedule, we agreed to this delay in order to keep our service promise of excellence.12/18/2017When our team arrived on December 18th, we discovered scaffolding in place in the living area, where we were scheduled to paint high ceilingsThese scaffolds made it difficult for our painters to complete their assignment, and made it impossibles to put drop cloths down in the areas occupied by the scaffoldHowever, a full canvas drop covering was deployed before ceilings were rolled, in all applicable areas, except for the footprint of the scaffolding itselfExtraordinary care was taken to avoid splatter on exposed areas, and although it is our standard practice to inspect all floors after removing canvas drop coverings, we were unable to properly inspect the floors due to extensive splatter and debris from drywall installation and drywall primer being undertaken by a third partyNevertheless, any potential splatter from our work was minimal, and inspection did not reveal any splatter attributable to our painting.Other third parties, whom we now understand to have been Complainant's family members, were engaged in remodel work in the Property until late at night, and did not seem willing to accommodate our painters in completing their workCabinets were being installed in the kitchenette at the same time our painters were supposed to paint walls and ceilings in this area, and although out team communicated with these third parties, and saved the kitchenette area for last, these family members were reluctant to give our painters even the requested twenty minutes to complete painting the ceilingsSubsequently, we scheduled our painters later and later, to try to avoid contact with family members and extraneous work crewsOvernight painting was explicitly authorized by the Complainant, and was spelled out in her contract; open scheduling was necessary for us to guarantee completion on a tight deadline.Our painters removed all interior doors, and stacked them carefully for pickup at a later dateHinges and latch fixtures were removed, to make way for painting trim.Later that night, when attempting to prime trim in the ground-floor bedroom, our painters discovered boxes, other contractors' tools, and other items including an oven, pushed fully against the walls, and covering the majority of the floor space, making it necessary for our painters to move these items in order to access the trimOur contract allows for additional fees for unscheduled furniture moving, but we waived these fees for the Complainant despite significant delays caused by moving furniture in an over crowded bedroomEven when painting behind the oven our painters took care to apply low-release masking tape and six-inch masking paper to every inch of the baseboard trim, before brushing on oil primer.As we were contracted to paint only "extant brown trim", and we were aware that the Complainant was planning to replace considerable lengths of baseboard trim, we did not paint any trim boards that we found removed and stacked in the back bedroom, or scattered throughout the PropertyAdditional equipment would have been required to paint loose time boards, and no such instruction was provided.Our painters stored their equipment carefully in an unused corner of the living area, covered tools with drop cloths, ans stood extension poles in the adjacent cornerWe always take photographs of any equipment left on-site, and can prove that various tool were taken and used by the Complainant of her family membersSeveral items were never recovered, while others were returned after having been used to paint[redacted] This conversation was not reported to management until 1/9/18, following the Complainant's negative feedback, due to Company policies tat guide painters not to gossip about private conversations that they may overhear in the course of their workThis painter also overhead one of these family members accusing our workmen of theft, while speaking to another family member in a semi-public conversation that seemed intended to be overheadThese allegations were never repeated directly to Company workmen, and it seems the situation has been resolvedThis information is included herein only to illustrate the hostility with which Complainant's family members treated company workmen.12/20/2017Company owner Ben McBroom personally oversaw removal of interior doors from the premises, and painted two lengths of trim with one and two coats respectively, to help the Complainant better understand the difference between one coat and two coats of ProClassic waterborne enamel paintComplainant personally compared the two lengths of trim, and decided that despite the significant difference in coverage, she had only budgeted for one coatComplainant later added coats of her own paint under and over the Company's work, compromising the integrity of the paint strata and requiring additional sanding and "back-prep" by Company workmen, for which the Company did not bill any additional fees or expenses.12/21/17The Company continued to work on the evening of December 21st, painting all upstairs trim and a number of interior walls throughout the Property in preparation for the scheduled installation of new carpeting on December 22nd.Prior to arrival, Complainant told Company that she was paint several sections of wood trim herself, in order to better hide the underlying brown trim in a single coat of ProClassic enamelThis included new untreated wood, which was not coated with suitable wood primer before being top-coated with non-enamel latex paintThough this may have improved hide of the underlying color, it not only required more work to recoat, but also compromised the integrity to adherence of the enamel topcoat, and voided the Complainant's warrantee, per a standard Service Agreement, which warns homeowners against attempting such work without notice or authorization.While painting, Company workmen observed that several sections of wood trim had been removed and replaced with new untreated woodComplainant gave no notice or guidance regarding this change, and the Company was unable to apply ProClassic waterborne enamel paint to these sections of untreated wood, as a wood primer had not been previously applied, and several knots were present in the untreated wood.Complainant seemed to understand why the Company did not paint lengths of trim that had been removed, or the untreated wood, as she made no mention of the sameIt now appears that the Complainant may have removed sections of trim in order to garner either free painting services or subsequent "discounts" on the Change Order attached to her Service Agreement, by confusing or misleading Company workmen as to the scope of this interior paint Project, after her DIY remodel ran over-budget; complainant is collaterally estopped from litigating aspects of her contract that she did not allow to be completed, or to which she did not properly and timely objectNeither should she be allowed to litigate such matters in the court of public opinion, with the clear disclaimer that she and her family members directly interfered in the Company's execution of its Service Agreement, and did not allow final touch-ups.12/23/2017The Company completed interior painting, aside from final touch-ups, early morning December 24thA Cursory inspection was performed pending final touch-ups, and all areas appeared to have been painted consistent with the Service AgreementThus, the Company executed the original contract as agreed, before the 24th of December deadline, aside from final touch-ups that the Complainant prevented the Company from completing; these touch-ups would have been completed before the 24th as well, but the Change Order - which had no explicit deadline - required delaying all touch-ups until the conclusion of the entire interior repaint ProjectAs touch-ups must be delayed until the completion of the Change Order, the Company left a Louisville 8-foot fiberglass ladder at the Property, as authorized by our Service Agreement to facilitate any necessary final touch-ups on inaccessible higher walls and ceilings.12/26/2017The Complainant agreed to the Company delivering doors during final touch-ups on December 26th, and agreed to a late night delivery in order to receive delivery of the doors and complete final touch-ups as soon as possibleAlthough we originally projected an 8pm arrival time, actual arrival was shortly before 9:30pm, and the Complainant was advised that our team would be late due to weather delays with our delivery vehiclesWhen the Complainant attempted to reschedule, she was advised that workmen were already en route; she agreed that our workmen would deliver the doors and return to reinstall them and do touch-ups in the morning, and suggested that workmen could stay to install one or more bathrooms and bedroom doors if they had timeDespite a late hour, this plan seemed agreeable to the parties.Company workmen arrived to find remodeling work already in progress; the back hallway exterior door was being replaced, and trim already painted by the Company had been ripped off to facilitate the process of replacing the doorjambThe person working on the door - with handheld power tools at 9:30pm on a weeknight was another family memberHe refused to discontinue his work while the doors were being unloaded and brought inside, and was confrontational when asked where the doors should be placed overnightWhile the doors were being unloaded, he was in the entry doorway working, preventing the door from being opened entirely, and in many instances causing Company workmen to stand and wait, holding heavy doors, while he pounded at the doorjambLoading these interior doors should taken only minutes, and this interference not only made the process more time-consuming but also more dangerousCompany workmen hung one of the doors, in the upstairs bathroom, and then departed with the understanding that they would return in the morning to complete reinstallation and touch-upsCompany workmen reported not seeing the 8-foot fiber glass ladder that had been left at the Property, when dropping off the interior doors, but at that time it was not needed or scheduled for load-out.Although Complainant's statement to the Revdex.com makes it seem that she was present on December 26th at the time that the doors were delivered, in fact she was not [redacted] On the morning of December 27th, the Complainant sent SMS messages to Company owner Ben McBroom, outlining various complaints that could have all been resolved by final touch-ups, and a second coat of paint on doors and trimComplainant stated, as she has repeated since, that doors were to be sprayed with paint, although this element of application was never discussed, and it would be superfluous method that would be very wasteful of the expensive ProClassic waterborne enamel paintComplainant was also very insistent that our workmen should have removed knobs before painting the doorsThis is not specified in the contract, and is not normally a part of repainting flat interior doorsOutside hinges were removed from all doors, and knobs were taped and masked, before priming and painting; one knob had some paint on it due to loose tape, and this was noted for cleanup during final touch-ups, which would also have removed the various scuffs resulting from routine transport.Performance and HideCompany cannot guarantee performance of Complainant's paint, because it was not manufactured o provided by the Company, and because it did not meet standards recommended by the CompanyThe Service Agreement specified "one or two coats" of paint on walls, only one coat on ceilings, and only one coat (plus primer) on trimAll areas received two full coats of paint, as well as spot touch-ups, but the Company was prevented from returning to perform touch-ups and a full inspection and finished work, and cannot guarantee material performance or final result in this instanceTo the Company's knowledge, all aspects of the Project were properly completed as per work order and itemization of the Service Agreement signed by the Complainant, with the exception of routine final touch-ups - de minimis is the scope of the Project.Contract Abandonment and Libelous RemarksUnder Illinois law, a contract is considered abandoned for purpose of a Mechanic's Lien, if after days the property owner denies a contractor access to the property for the purposes of completing workThe Company considers that contract abandoned as of January 2nd, the last day of work being December 26th, and reserves the right to petition the Courts for a Mechanic's Lien and/or civil tort alleging breach of contract if Complainant's outstanding balance is not paid in full before January 26th.Separately, Complainant's untrue public remarks, maliciously intended to damage the Company's reputation and prospective business advantages, as well as ostensibly to extort a "discount" from the Company, constitutes various torts under State law, and the Company reserves the right to sue for damages related to such trade libel.Allegations regarding the quality of Company craftsmanship of customer service are untrue insofar as Complainant interfere with the execution of the contract, and her seeming surprise at unsatisfactory single-coat paint coverage seems insincere after the Company painted samples of baseboard trim for her informed decision-makingThe Service Agreement specified on coat of paint on ceilings, and up to two coats as necessary on walls; the Change Order outlined variable pricing for one coat of paint versus two (not including primer) on the trim and doors, and the Complainant chose one coat despite Company's guidance that this may not offer satisfactory coverage.The Company respectfully respectfully reminds the Revdex.com that allegations of criminal conduct are weighed differently than ordinary libel in the eyes of the court system, and are subject to automatic presumptions of malice, as well as the default presumption of untruth - it the Complainant cannot prove these specific allegations, publicizing the substance of her Complaint and instant Answer would magnify Complainant's liability in a subsequent proceeding under State tort law, and the Revdex.com would be responsible for facilitating the Complainant's exposure to greatly increased civil liabilityOther review venues, such as Facebook and HomeAdvisor, have procedures in place to automatically censor allegations of criminal conduct for precisely these reasonCompany's obligations to mitigation its own damages are hereby an herewith fulfilled pursuant to the foregoing statement.Next StepsThe Company demands that the Complainant pay her bill in full before January 26th, 2018, in the form of a check written to "Cru Paint Co.", mailed to the address below.Company demands immediate return of all its materials and supplies - including but not limited to: two (2) 5-gallon buckets (one blue Sherwin-Williams, one white with food grade material sticker), one (1) one-gallon bucket (white); one (1) Louisville 8' fiber glass "A-frame" ladder (orange) - which were lawfully stored at the PropertyIf any such Company property has been lost, destroyed, or solid, it must be replaced.The Company demands that Complainant immediately remove untrue or misleading statements from any and every venue in which they have been posted - including but not limited to: Cru Paint CoFacebook page, HomeAdvisor customer review, Revdex.com complaint - and abstain from making any such negative and untrue statements in the future, in any venue, whether public or privateWe take all libel very seriously, particularly when it seems pointed to extorting money through defamatory speech.Thank yo for your attention to this important matter.Sincerely,Ben McBroomOwner, Cur Paint CoNLogan St.Lincoln, IL 62656Ph(309) [email protected] Attached:ExA: Signed Service AgreementExB-C: SMS Messages w/ Complainant (InclRe: Change Order); Expanded SMSExD-F: Emails w/ Complainant (InclRe: Change Order)ExG: Final Invoice Sent w/ Backdoor Key via USPS Certified MailExH-I: PHOTOS: "A bathroom was painted by Complainant or her family members and demonstrates the carelessness with which these individuals worked, in the same area we were contracted to paintThere is paint on all baseboard trim, and splashes far larger than ordinary cabinetry."ExJ: PHOTO: Due to the presence of a scaffold, our workmen engaged in some unorthodox ladder placement in order to cand roll the ceilingsIn the background that there is green painter's tape and brown masking paper around the perimeter of the room in addition to full canvas drop coverThe same tape and masking was applied under trim throughout the Property."ExK: VIDEO: "The kitchen flood had drywall compound as well a white primer or paint throughoutThe living room floor was in much worse condition, due to ongoing drywall work, but there was no noticeable paint in the living room until after a loft handrail was painted by homeowner or her family."ExL: VIDEO: "This bedroom was not unfurnished as specified by out Agreement with the homeownerOur workmen had great difficulty painting trim here."

More photos available if needed. It would only let me upload 4. I have about 30. Any with brown trim are from prior to painting. I have one that I have included that shows the knee-wall overlooking the floor below. This shows that there was no white paint on the brown floor after the knee wall was completed therefore it could not be drywall mud as the painter stated. If you look at the 4th picture, the paint is brush strokes from painting the trim without tape. These paint stains are on the majority of the perimeter of the floor surrounding the home directly below the trim. I have yet to remove it all as I work hours per week and have not had time. Let me know if you would like more pictures uploaded of the doors, trim paint on the walls etc

I am rejecting this response because: 
The business owner has made no attempt to resolve the complaint and has in fact threatened lawsuit if I do not retract my complaints from this organization.  I also have every text message and email that the company owner sent in which he specifically states that he will have the work completed prior to Christmas and that he would not be able to begin until Monday December 18th due to a wall being built.  They had ample time to complete the project but did not show up many of the days.  He also had full knowledge that myself and others would be in the condo the week in question installing cabinets and painting bedroom and bathroom walls.   I asked for a discount due to incomplete work that lacked the quality expected from a professional painter.  I also received bids from other companies for the job in question and he was right in the middle.   I painted the upstairs loft trim due to the painters skipping several days leading me to believe that they would not complete the upstairs prior to carpet being installed.  In fact, they did not complete the upstairs prior to carpet installation making my worries accurate.  The trim that I painted was over bare subfloor which was covered by carpet.  This trim was never part of my complaint.  The walls in the upstairs were a problem due to a second coat of paint not being applied.  The same quality of paint was used in the bedrooms and bathrooms that I painted.  The paint covered and looked great with two coats which has been typical any time I have painted regardless of name brand.   My complaint is the entire downstairs that was completed by Ben McBroom on December 23rd.  I was present in the condo until late and he did not tape off the wall nor the floor.  When I returned after Christmas the entire area of floor in the downstairs had paint stains from the brush.  We have pictures of the floors from prior to him painting that show the stains were not there prior to that date.  When I complained via text he made no mention of fixing the problem, only that he would be there at 8 pm to install completed doors and touch up a ceiling along with a railing that he had gotten paint on.  He arrived very late with doors that were in poor condition.  We had already extended the date of moving to the 26th giving him ample time to have this completed.  My daughter, the owner of the condo,  is 20 years old and blind.  The fact that they arrived very late at night along with the fact that the floors were damaged and the doors were in poor condition made her very uncomfortable.  These reasons were enough for me to terminate the contract and discontinue use of their services.  I signed the contract with the expectation of professional completion of the job along with quality craftsmanship.  The many pictures that I have prove that this was not rendered.  I in no way am trying to "extort" the business owner for a discount and find it very distasteful that he continues to accuse me of this while he is the one sending threatening letters if I do not comply.  I have hired several contractors throughout my life and never once posted a negative review or not completed payment upon satisfactory completion of the job.

RE: Revdex.com Complaint #1[redacted] 01/04/18RE: Facebook REview ("Cru Paint Co.") 01/01/18RE: HomeAdvisor Review(s) 01/06/18 & 01/10/18January 17th, 2018To Whom It May Concern:We apologize for the length and detail of the following factual account, but we have prepared a statement in anticipation of...

litigation, based on Complainant's remarks regarding a civil complaint and the vociferousness of her untrue and/or misleading statements. We take great pride in our level of quality as well as customer service, and our clientele includes commercial accounts as well as ordinary homeowners, so we take all complaints very seriously and make every attempt to resolve disputes in a fair and equitable manner. We are also acutely aware of the road difference in the quality and customer service of our competitors, and the presence of fraudulent or irresponsible contractors in the residential home improvement market. We attempts to distinguish our brand not only through high quality and friendly service, but also by making out Service Agreements detailed and specific, so there is no confusion or feeling of being "double-crossed" by surprise surcharges that customers sometimes find with other painting contractors. We do our best to educate homeowners about the painting process as well as our billing structure, and to maintain clear channels of communication throughout the process. We have had difficult customers before, but in this case it appears that the Complainant is engaging in essentially extortive behavior, after attempting to garner a "discount" by sabotaging our work efforts. We hope that our professionalism is evident in the manner in which we have at all times communicated respectfully with the Complainant, even as her complaints escalated to ludicrous and even criminal suspicions. The Complainant should read the terms of her contract, retract her libelous statements, and pay her bill as soon as possible to avoid appropriate legal action.Service Agreement and Change OrderWe contracted with the Complainant to repaint the walls and ceilings of specific areas of her condominium, with a deadline of December 24th, 2017, so furnishings could be moved into her daughter's new home by Christmas Eve. Although many of our painters were unavailable due to the holidays, necessitating greater than usual demands on senior staff and management, we agreed to this deadline in order to meet our service promise. The Complainant represented that the Property would be "unoccupied and unfurnished",and we were able to extend a labor-only discount of 20% ($410.00 USD) on that basis, because unfurnished dwellings are somewhat easier to paint. Complainant signed a Service Agreement that specifically laid out the contours of the Project, and formalize the rights of the parties. In a rare exception to standard policies, the Company allowed the Complainant herself to furnish paint for the walls and ceilings, in order to help her save money, and offered professional guidance on what to look for when stopping for paint; that Complainant purchased a lower-grade paint that recommended, ignoring Company's advice that the premium latex paint formulation wold have better "hide" power to cover existing colors.Complainant then requested a bid on painting white the existing dark brown trim and marching doors throughout the Property. Details of this Change Order are our in a series of SMS messages and emails, specifying separate pricing for primer and one coat of paint, especially due to the dramatic color change and the fact that the trim boards were sealed or varnished. Company agreed to prorate the second coat, so that if a second coat, so that if a second coat was required only on a fraction of the trim or only on some of the doors, pricing could be be adjusted fairly. To promote high customer satisfaction, the Company made a separate visit to paint two lengths of baseboard trim in the upstairs bathroom -  on with a single coat, and the other with two coats. After seeing the sample time, the Complainant stated that her project was already over-budget, and requested only a single coat be applied in all areas. Complainant did not disclose her intention to apply additional coats of paint herself, and did not properly inform the Company of her extraneous remodeling efforts, which were to take place during the course of the repaint Project, and which have all interfered greatly with the Company's expedient completion of its work.12/12/2017Complainant received keys to the Property on December 12th, and the Company was on-site that evening to pick up a spare key and inspect the Property. We were told it wold be necessary to wait until the 18th to begin painting, because the oft railing was due to be replaced with a knee wall. Although this further compressed our work schedule, we agreed to this delay in order to keep our service promise of excellence.12/18/2017When our team arrived on December 18th, we discovered scaffolding in place in the living area, where we were scheduled to paint high ceilings. These scaffolds made it difficult for our painters to complete their assignment, and made it impossibles to put drop cloths down in the areas occupied by the scaffold. However, a full canvas drop covering was deployed before ceilings were rolled, in all applicable areas, except for the footprint of the scaffolding itself. Extraordinary care was taken to avoid splatter on exposed areas, and although it is our standard practice to inspect all floors after removing canvas drop coverings, we were unable to properly inspect the floors due to extensive splatter and debris from drywall installation and drywall primer being undertaken by a third party. Nevertheless, any potential splatter from our work was minimal, and inspection did not reveal any splatter attributable to our painting.Other third parties, whom we now understand to have been Complainant's family members, were engaged in remodel work in the Property until late at night, and did not seem willing to accommodate our painters in completing their work. Cabinets were being installed in the kitchenette at the same time our painters were supposed to paint walls and ceilings in this area, and although out team communicated with these third parties, and saved the kitchenette area for last, these family members were reluctant to give our painters even the requested twenty minutes to complete painting the ceilings. Subsequently, we scheduled our painters later and later, to try to avoid contact with family members and extraneous work crews. Overnight painting was explicitly authorized by the Complainant, and was spelled out in her contract; open scheduling was necessary for us to guarantee completion on a tight deadline.Our painters removed all interior doors, and stacked them carefully for pickup at a later date. Hinges and latch fixtures were removed, to make way for painting trim.Later that night, when attempting to prime trim in the ground-floor bedroom, our painters discovered boxes, other contractors' tools, and other items including an oven, pushed fully against the walls, and covering the majority of the floor space, making it necessary for our painters to move these items in order to access the trim. Our contract allows for additional fees for unscheduled furniture moving, but we waived these fees for the Complainant despite significant delays caused by moving furniture in an over crowded bedroom. Even when painting behind the oven our painters took care to apply low-release masking tape and six-inch masking paper to every inch of the baseboard trim, before brushing on oil primer.As we were contracted to paint only "extant brown trim", and we were aware that the Complainant was planning to replace considerable  lengths of baseboard trim, we did not paint any trim boards that we found removed and stacked in the back bedroom, or scattered throughout the Property. Additional equipment would have been required to paint loose time boards, and no such instruction was provided.Our painters stored their equipment carefully in an unused corner of the living area, covered tools with drop cloths, ans stood extension poles in the adjacent corner. We always take photographs of any equipment left on-site, and can prove that various tool were taken and used by the Complainant of her family members. Several items were never recovered, while others were returned after having been used to paint.[redacted] This conversation was not reported to management until 1/9/18, following the Complainant's negative feedback, due to Company policies tat guide painters not to gossip about private conversations that they may overhear in the course of their work. This painter also overhead one of these family members accusing our workmen of theft, while speaking to another family member in a semi-public conversation that seemed intended to be overhead. These allegations were never repeated directly to Company workmen, and it seems the situation has been resolved. This information is included herein only to illustrate the hostility with which Complainant's family members treated company workmen.12/20/2017Company owner Ben McBroom personally oversaw removal of interior doors from the premises, and painted two lengths of trim with one and two coats respectively, to help the Complainant better understand the difference between one coat and two coats of ProClassic waterborne enamel paint. Complainant personally compared the two lengths of trim, and decided that despite the significant difference in coverage, she had only budgeted for one coat. Complainant later added coats of her own paint under and over the Company's work, compromising the integrity of the paint strata and requiring additional sanding and "back-prep" by Company workmen, for which the Company did not bill any additional fees or expenses.12/21/17The Company continued to work on the evening of December 21st, painting all upstairs trim and a number of interior walls throughout the Property in preparation  for the scheduled installation of new carpeting on December 22nd.Prior to arrival, Complainant told Company that she was paint several sections of wood  trim herself, in order to better hide the underlying brown trim in a single coat of ProClassic enamel. This included new untreated wood, which was not coated with suitable wood primer before being top-coated with non-enamel latex paint. Though this may have improved hide of the underlying color, it not only required more work to recoat, but also compromised the integrity to adherence of the enamel topcoat, and voided the Complainant's warrantee, per a standard Service Agreement, which warns homeowners against attempting such work without notice or authorization.While painting, Company workmen observed that several sections of wood trim had been removed and replaced with new untreated wood. Complainant gave no notice or guidance regarding this change, and the Company was unable to apply ProClassic waterborne enamel paint to these sections of untreated wood, as a wood primer had not been previously applied, and several knots were present in the untreated wood.Complainant seemed to understand why the Company did not paint lengths of trim that had been removed, or the untreated wood, as she made no mention of the same. It now appears that the Complainant may have removed sections of trim in order to garner either free painting services or subsequent "discounts" on the Change Order attached to her Service Agreement, by confusing or misleading Company workmen as to the scope of this interior paint Project, after her DIY remodel ran over-budget; complainant is collaterally estopped from litigating aspects of her contract that she did not allow to be completed, or to which she did not properly and timely object. Neither should she be allowed to litigate such matters in the court of public opinion, with the clear disclaimer that she and her family members directly interfered in the Company's execution of its Service Agreement, and did not allow final touch-ups.12/23/2017The Company completed interior painting, aside from final touch-ups, early morning December 24th. A Cursory inspection was performed pending final touch-ups, and all areas appeared to have been painted consistent with the Service Agreement. Thus, the Company executed the original contract as agreed, before the 24th of December deadline, aside from final touch-ups that the Complainant prevented the Company from completing; these touch-ups would have been completed before the 24th as well, but the Change Order - which had no explicit deadline - required delaying all touch-ups until the conclusion of the entire interior repaint Project. As touch-ups must be delayed until the completion of the Change Order, the Company left a Louisville 8-foot fiberglass ladder at the Property, as authorized by our Service Agreement to facilitate any necessary final touch-ups on inaccessible higher walls and ceilings.12/26/2017The Complainant agreed to the Company delivering doors during final touch-ups on December 26th, and agreed to a late night delivery in order to receive delivery of the doors and complete final touch-ups as soon as possible. Although we originally projected an 8pm arrival time, actual arrival was shortly before 9:30pm, and the Complainant was advised that our team would be late due to weather delays with our delivery vehicles. When the Complainant attempted to reschedule, she was advised that workmen were already en route; she agreed that our workmen would deliver the doors and return to reinstall them and do touch-ups in the morning, and suggested that workmen could stay to install one or more bathrooms and bedroom doors if they had time. Despite a late hour, this plan seemed agreeable to the parties.Company workmen arrived to find remodeling work already in progress; the back hallway exterior door was being replaced, and trim already painted by the Company had been ripped off to facilitate the process of replacing the doorjamb. The person working on the door - with handheld power tools at 9:30pm on a weeknight was another family member. He refused to discontinue his work while the doors were being unloaded and brought inside, and was confrontational when asked where the doors should be placed overnight. While the doors were being unloaded, he was in the entry doorway working, preventing the door from being opened entirely, and in many instances causing Company workmen to stand and wait, holding heavy doors, while he pounded at the doorjamb. Loading these interior doors should taken only minutes, and this interference not only made the process more time-consuming but also more dangerous. Company workmen hung one of the doors, in the upstairs bathroom, and then departed with the understanding that they would return in the morning to complete reinstallation and touch-ups. Company workmen reported not seeing the 8-foot fiber glass ladder that had been left at the Property, when dropping off the interior doors, but at that time it was not needed or scheduled for load-out.Although Complainant's statement to the Revdex.com makes it seem that she was present on December 26th at the time that the  doors were delivered, in fact she was not. [redacted]On the morning of December 27th, the Complainant sent SMS messages to Company owner Ben McBroom, outlining various complaints that could have all been resolved by final touch-ups, and a second coat of paint on doors and trim. Complainant stated, as she has repeated since, that doors were to be sprayed with paint, although this element of application was never discussed, and it would be superfluous method that would be very wasteful of the expensive ProClassic waterborne enamel paint. Complainant was also very insistent that our workmen should have removed knobs before painting the doors. This is not specified in the contract, and is not normally a part of repainting flat interior doors. Outside hinges were removed from all doors, and knobs were taped and masked, before priming and painting; one knob had some paint on it due to loose tape, and this was noted for cleanup during final touch-ups, which would also have removed the various scuffs resulting from routine transport.Performance and HideCompany cannot guarantee performance of Complainant's paint, because it was not manufactured o provided by the Company, and because it did not meet standards recommended by the Company. The Service Agreement specified "one or two coats" of paint on walls, only one coat on ceilings, and only one coat (plus primer) on trim. All areas received two full coats of paint, as well as spot touch-ups, but the Company was prevented from returning to perform touch-ups and a full inspection and finished work, and cannot guarantee material performance or final result in this instance. To the Company's knowledge, all aspects of the Project were properly completed as per work order and itemization of the Service Agreement signed by the Complainant, with the exception of routine final touch-ups - de minimis is the scope of the Project.Contract Abandonment and Libelous RemarksUnder Illinois law, a contract is considered abandoned for purpose of a Mechanic's Lien, if after 10 days the property owner denies a contractor access to the property for the purposes of completing work. The Company considers that contract abandoned as of January 2nd, the last day of work being December 26th, and reserves the right to petition the Courts for a Mechanic's Lien and/or civil tort alleging breach of contract if Complainant's outstanding balance is not paid in full before January 26th.Separately, Complainant's untrue public remarks, maliciously intended to damage the Company's reputation and prospective business advantages, as well as ostensibly to extort a "discount" from the Company, constitutes various torts under State law, and the Company reserves the right to sue for damages related to such trade libel.Allegations regarding the quality of Company craftsmanship of customer service are untrue insofar as Complainant interfere with the execution of the contract, and her seeming surprise at unsatisfactory single-coat paint coverage seems insincere after the Company painted samples of baseboard trim for her informed decision-making. The Service Agreement specified on coat of paint on ceilings, and up to two coats as necessary on walls; the Change Order outlined variable pricing for one coat of paint versus two (not including primer) on the trim and doors, and the Complainant chose one coat despite Company's guidance that this may not offer satisfactory coverage.The Company respectfully respectfully reminds the Revdex.com that allegations of criminal conduct are weighed differently than ordinary libel in the eyes of the court system, and are subject to automatic presumptions of malice, as well as the default presumption of untruth - it the Complainant cannot prove these specific allegations, publicizing the substance of her Complaint and instant Answer would magnify Complainant's liability in a subsequent proceeding under State tort law, and the Revdex.com would be responsible for facilitating the Complainant's exposure to greatly increased civil liability. Other review venues, such as Facebook and HomeAdvisor, have procedures in place to automatically censor allegations of criminal conduct for precisely these reason. Company's obligations to mitigation its own damages are hereby an herewith fulfilled pursuant to the foregoing statement.Next StepsThe Company demands that the Complainant pay her bill in full before January 26th, 2018, in the form of a check written to "Cru Paint Co.", mailed to the address below.Company demands immediate return of all its materials and supplies - including but not limited to: two (2) 5-gallon buckets (one blue Sherwin-Williams, one white with food grade material sticker), one (1) one-gallon bucket (white); one (1) Louisville 8' fiber glass "A-frame" ladder (orange) - which were lawfully stored at the Property. If any such Company property has been lost, destroyed, or solid, it must be replaced.The Company demands that Complainant immediately remove untrue or misleading statements from any and every venue in which they have been posted - including but not limited to: Cru Paint Co. Facebook page, HomeAdvisor customer review, Revdex.com complaint - and abstain from making any such negative and untrue statements in the future, in any venue, whether public or private. We take all libel very seriously, particularly when it seems pointed to extorting money through defamatory speech.Thank yo for your attention to this important matter.Sincerely,Ben McBroomOwner, Cur Paint Co.616 N. Logan St.Lincoln, IL 62656Ph. (309) [email protected] Attached:Ex. A: Signed Service AgreementEx. B-C: SMS Messages w/ Complainant (Incl. Re: Change Order); Expanded SMSEx. D-F: Emails w/ Complainant (Incl. Re: Change Order)Ex. G: Final Invoice Sent w/ Backdoor Key via USPS Certified MailEx. H-I: PHOTOS: "A bathroom was painted by Complainant or her family members and demonstrates the carelessness with which these individuals worked, in the same area we were contracted to paint. There is paint on all baseboard trim, and splashes far larger than ordinary cabinetry."Ex. J: PHOTO: Due to the presence of a scaffold, our workmen engaged in some unorthodox ladder placement in order to cut-in and roll the ceilings. In the background that there is green painter's tape and brown masking paper around the perimeter of the room in addition to full canvas drop cover. The same tape and masking was applied under trim throughout the Property."Ex. K: VIDEO: "The kitchen flood had drywall compound as well a white primer or paint throughout. The living room floor was in much worse condition, due to ongoing drywall work, but there was no noticeable paint in the living room until after a loft handrail was painted by homeowner or her family."Ex. L: VIDEO: "This bedroom was not unfurnished as specified by out Agreement with the homeowner. Our workmen had great difficulty painting trim here."