CT Outdoor Services

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:If he is referring to the offer made 1/20/16, we responded on 1/26/with a counter offerWe have not heard from them since Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Additional materials beyond those supplied by CT Outdoor Services were required to complete the project to it's original scopeThese included additional [redacted] wall block and paversPlease see attached invoices from [redacted] (pages)While it is true that the wall block color originally delivered was unacceptable, and not at all like the samples I was shownI was told by CT Outdoor Services, the manufacturer agreed to take it back and replace it with an alternate color at no costWhile this did take time and cause a delay to the patio portion of the project, CT Outdoor Services was extremely slow with their progress elsewhere, being consistently shorthanded, and not working on Fridays, due to the "mason's" lawn care business obligationsAdditionally, at no time while on site did CT Outdoor Services ever suggest this created a change to the contract scopeOn November 6, 2015, I received the attached letter from [redacted] (page) indicating they had not been paid by CT Outdoor Services for the material supplied to our home, and threatening a possible lien on our propertyWhile I have heard promises from CT Outdoor Services that the charges have been or will be paid, we have yet to receive the promised Lien WaiverOne can only assume the worst at this point without evidence to the contraryI should also note the CT Outdoor Services' electrical subcontractor sent me an invoice as well indicating he had not been paid by themThe contracted scope of work (see attached contract dated 7/9/2015) as shown included much more than what CT Outdoor Services actually completedWhile they did demolish our deck, and install the front walk and garage apron pavers, none of the remaining items were completedIt is also clear to me, they didn't properly install any of the pavers, or wall blockA cursory review of the manufacturer's installation guidelines, indicates properly compacted sand bedding material should be used, and edge restraint is common to hold pavers in placeNeither were used by CT Outdoor ServicesIn fact, when the manufacturer's guidelines were pointed out to them on numerous concerning items, that was when they abandoned the projectI would also note the propane work was contracted seperately at CT Outdoor Services agreement and requestThe contractor's allegation that I frequently changed my mind regarding details of the project is without basisAt no time was I inconsistent in providing requested informationAdditionally, at no time while on site did CT Outdoor Services even suggest that any comment given constituted a change in scopeThe cost to complete the project was carefully controlled by me after CT Outdoor Services abandoned the workI sought quotes from more than six contractors, and received four verbal or written proposals, of which the least expensive was selectedThe cost for the completion of the contract was strictly within the original scope of workCT Outdoor Services could have controlled these cost themselves by properly performing what they were contracted to do, but they refused to do so.I am frankly appalled that CT Outdoor Services does not feel an obligation to make good on their contract, and conduct their affairs in a proper business like fashionI proceeded in good faith, based on the expectation I would receive what I contracted for, and made payments to them accordinglyNot only have I suffered a significant financial hardship because of them, but what was supposed to be a two week project turned into a four month struggle to get our yard back in order because of CT Outdoor Services Sincerely, [redacted]

We made them an offerAwaiting a response

Good afternoon,The consumer rejected our generous offer, therefore we feel that this frivolous complaint has run it's courseWe admit to no wrongdoingWe have a flawless track record with our customers and this entire dog & pony show seems to just be an attempt to extort money from our company because we pulled out of the project when the customer became unbearable to work for and his new quote came in higher than he felt was fair. The customer began this process by demanding over $10,from us because his new quote was much higher than he wanted to payHe advised that it was high because of our flawed workmanship and the new contractor would have to "redo" much of our work that he had paid us forTruth be told, once our attorney requested the quote from the new contractor, there was no verbiage about repairing or redoing any work done by our company, but only work that was still left to completeTherefore the customer has proven that he provides information to further his own agenda.The customer reduced his amount from $10,to $7,We countered with $3,That was our final offer as we do not have time for frivolous mattersHis attorney advised that we needed to "close the gap" and we declinedThe customer has since advised he will be taking us to small claims court now, which has a limit of $5,plus legal fees up to $This is a far cry from his original demandIt's apparent that the customer does not have confidence in his original case and is going to "wing it" in small claims court where he does not need to pay a retainer for an attorney and will simply try to extort as much money out of us as cheaply as possibleIn the end the facts will be disclosed in court and once judgement has been made in our favor, we will counter sue for the attorney fees we've had to pay due to this ridiculous complaint

Good afternoon,
The consumer rejected our generous offer, therefore we feel that this frivolous complaint has run it's courseWe admit to no wrongdoingWe have a flawless track record with our customers and this entire dog & pony show seems to just be an attempt to extort money from our company because we pulled out of the project when the customer became unbearable to work for and his new quote came in higher than he felt was fair.
The customer began this process by demanding over $10,from us because his new quote was much higher than he wanted to payHe advised that it was high because of our flawed workmanship and the new contractor would have to "redo" much of our work that he had paid us forTruth be told, once our attorney requested the quote from the new contractor, there was no verbiage about repairing or redoing any work done by our company, but only work that was still left to completeTherefore the customer has proven that he provides information to further his own agendaThe customer reduced his amount from $10,to $7,We countered with $3,That was our final offer as we do not have time for frivolous mattersHis attorney advised that we needed to "close the gap" and we declinedThe customer has since advised he will be taking us to small claims court now, which has a limit of $5,plus legal fees up to $This is a far cry from his original demandIt's apparent that the customer does not have confidence in his original case and is going to "wing it" in small claims court where he does not need to pay a retainer for an attorney and will simply try to extort as much money out of us as cheaply as possibleIn the end the facts will be disclosed in court and once judgement has been made in our favor, we will counter sue for the attorney fees we've had to pay due to this ridiculous complaint

We deny the allegations made in the Complaint dated
11/13/15, ID ***
The allegation that ‘some of the materials were delivered’
is incorrectAll of the materials for the
contracted project were delivered; including
a large change in patio materials because client changed his mind on the color
of the productThis change in stone created weeks of delay in completing the
project, as well as additional man hours (an expense absorbed by the
contractor) to repackage and deliver the material to supplier
The allegation that said materials were not paid for by the
contractor is also incorrectThe entire bill to materials supplier has been
paid in fullThe lien waiver will be obtained shortly
The allegation that the contractor only completed ‘a small
amount of the work to substandard conditions’ is falseThe contractor
completed a great deal of work, namely: Front walkway, garage apron, portion of
rear walkway, 60% of raised patio, sprinkler valve relocation, and propane
plumbing, paying his masonry
subcontractor $7,for the work completedThe masonry subcontractor is a
highly skilled mason who has completed over a dozen jobs for the contractor in
the past and has had, until this time, perfect client job satisfaction results
The client’s frequent changes of mind regarding details of
the project created an untenable financial situation and work environment for
the contractor and its employees and subcontractorsThe contractor ended up
losing thousands of dollars on this particular projectThe higher cost of a
new contractor for the client is not the fault of the contractor$10,is more
than enough money to install a patio, stairs, and remainder of rear walkway since
all of the materials are in client’s possession to do so

Our attorney has advised us not to comment on this matter due to pending litigation brought on by Mr***

We deny the allegations made in the Complaint dated
11/13/15, ID ***
The
allegation that ‘some of the materials were delivered’
is incorrectAll of the materials for the contracted project were delivered; including
a large change in patio materials because client changed his mind on the color
of the productThis change in stone created weeks of delay in completing the
project, as well as additional man hours (an expense absorbed by the
contractor) to repackage and deliver the material to supplier
The allegation that said materials were not paid for by the
contractor is also incorrectThe entire bill to materials supplier has been
paid in fullThe lien waiver will be obtained shortly
The allegation that the contractor only completed ‘a small
amount of the work to substandard conditions’ is falseThe contractor
completed a great deal of work, namely: Front walkway, garage apron, portion of
rear walkway, 60% of raised patio, sprinkler valve relocation, and propane
plumbing, paying his masonry
subcontractor $7,for the work completedThe masonry subcontractor is a
highly skilled mason who has completed over a dozen jobs for the contractor in
the past and has had, until this time, perfect client job satisfaction results
The client’s frequent changes of mind regarding details of
the project created an untenable financial situation and work environment for
the contractor and its employees and subcontractorsThe contractor ended up
losing thousands of dollars on this particular projectThe higher cost of a
new contractor for the client is not the fault of the contractor$10,is more
than enough money to install a patio, stairs, and remainder of rear walkway since
all of the materials are in client’s possession to do so

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:If he is referring to the offer made 1/20/16, we responded on 1/26/16 with a counter offer. We have not heard from them since.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

We made them an offer. Awaiting a response

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
1. Additional materials beyond those supplied by CT Outdoor Services were required to complete the project to it's original scope. These included additional [redacted] wall block and pavers. Please see attached invoices from [redacted] (3 pages).
2. While it is true that the wall block color originally delivered was unacceptable, and not at all like the samples I was shown. I was told by CT Outdoor Services, the manufacturer agreed to take it back and replace it with an alternate color at no cost. While this did take time and cause a delay to the patio portion of the project, CT Outdoor Services was extremely slow with their progress elsewhere, being consistently shorthanded, and not working on Fridays, due to the "mason's" lawn care business obligations. Additionally, at no time while on site did CT Outdoor Services ever suggest this created a change to the contract scope.
3. On November 6, 2015, I received the attached letter from [redacted] (1 page) indicating they had not been paid by CT Outdoor Services for the material supplied to our home, and threatening a possible lien on our property. While I have heard promises from CT Outdoor Services that the charges have been or will be paid, we have yet to receive the promised Lien Waiver. One can only assume the worst at this point without evidence to the contrary. I should also note the CT Outdoor Services' electrical subcontractor sent me an invoice as well indicating he had not been paid by them.
4. The contracted scope of work (see attached contract dated 7/9/2015) as shown included much more than what CT Outdoor Services actually completed. While they did demolish our deck, and install the front walk and garage apron pavers, none of the remaining items were completed. It is also clear to me, they didn't properly install any of the pavers, or wall block. A cursory review of the manufacturer's installation guidelines, indicates properly compacted sand bedding material should be used, and edge restraint is common to hold pavers in place. Neither were used by CT Outdoor Services. In fact, when the manufacturer's guidelines were pointed out to them on numerous concerning items, that was when they abandoned the project. I would also note the propane work was contracted seperately at CT Outdoor Services agreement and request.
5. The contractor's allegation that I frequently changed my mind regarding details of the project is without basis. At no time was I inconsistent in providing requested information. Additionally, at no time while on site did CT Outdoor Services even suggest that any comment given constituted a change in scope.
6. The cost to complete the project was carefully controlled by me after CT Outdoor Services abandoned the work. I sought quotes from more than six contractors, and received four verbal or written proposals, of which the least expensive was selected. The cost for the completion of the contract was strictly within the original scope of work. CT Outdoor Services could have controlled these cost themselves by properly performing what they were contracted to do, but they refused to do so.
I am frankly appalled that CT Outdoor Services does not feel an obligation to make good on their contract, and conduct their affairs in a proper business like fashion. I proceeded in good faith, based on the expectation I would receive what I contracted for, and made payments to them accordingly. Not only have I suffered a significant financial hardship because of them, but what was supposed to be a two week project turned into a four month struggle to get our yard back in order because of CT Outdoor Services.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
If he is referring to the offer made 1/20/16, we responded on 1/26/16 with a counter offer. We have not heard from them since.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:1. Additional materials beyond those supplied by CT Outdoor Services were required to complete the project to it's original scope. These included additional [redacted] wall block and pavers. Please see attached invoices from [redacted] (3 pages).2. While it is true that the wall block color originally delivered was unacceptable, and not at all like the samples I was shown. I was told by CT Outdoor Services, the manufacturer agreed to take it back and replace it with an alternate color at no cost. While this did take time and cause a delay to the patio portion of the project, CT Outdoor Services was extremely slow with their progress elsewhere, being consistently shorthanded, and not working on Fridays, due to the "mason's" lawn care business obligations. Additionally, at no time while on site did CT Outdoor Services ever suggest this created a change to the contract scope.3. On November 6, 2015, I received the attached letter from [redacted] (1 page) indicating they had not been paid by CT Outdoor Services for the material supplied to our home, and threatening a possible lien on our property. While I have heard promises from CT Outdoor Services that the charges have been or will be paid, we have yet to receive the promised Lien Waiver. One can only assume the worst at this point without evidence to the contrary. I should also note the CT Outdoor Services' electrical subcontractor sent me an invoice as well indicating he had not been paid by them.4. The contracted scope of work (see attached contract dated 7/9/2015) as shown included much more than what CT Outdoor Services actually completed. While they did demolish our deck, and install the front walk and garage apron pavers, none of the remaining items were completed. It is also clear to me, they didn't properly install any of the pavers, or wall block. A cursory review of the manufacturer's installation guidelines, indicates properly compacted sand bedding material should be used, and edge restraint is common to hold pavers in place. Neither were used by CT Outdoor Services. In fact, when the manufacturer's guidelines were pointed out to them on numerous concerning items, that was when they abandoned the project. I would also note the propane work was contracted seperately at CT Outdoor Services agreement and request.5. The contractor's allegation that I frequently changed my mind regarding details of the project is without basis. At no time was I inconsistent in providing requested information. Additionally, at no time while on site did CT Outdoor Services even suggest that any comment given constituted a change in scope.6. The cost to complete the project was carefully controlled by me after CT Outdoor Services abandoned the work. I sought quotes from more than six contractors, and received four verbal or written proposals, of which the least expensive was selected. The cost for the completion of the contract was strictly within the original scope of work. CT Outdoor Services could have controlled these cost themselves by properly performing what they were contracted to do, but they refused to do so.I am frankly appalled that CT Outdoor Services does not feel an obligation to make good on their contract, and conduct their affairs in a proper business like fashion. I proceeded in good faith, based on the expectation I would receive what I contracted for, and made payments to them accordingly. Not only have I suffered a significant financial hardship because of them, but what was supposed to be a two week project turned into a four month struggle to get our yard back in order because of CT Outdoor Services.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: We have a written contract for them to construct a patio, stairs, and walkways for $31,613.00. They delivered some of the materials, installed a small amount of the work to substandard conditions, took $21,000.00 in payments, then abandoned the project without finishing. We have recently been informed from the material supplier, they have not paid for the materials delivered in the amount of $15,213.25 as well.

To complete the project, we needed to secure another contractor, and spend a significant amount of additional money.

In summary, Ct Outdoor Services agreed to the contract, took our money, and did not perform.Desired Settlement: Ct Outdoor Services needs to refund us $11,456.85 for the cost to complete the work. Additionally, they need to pay [redacted] Company for the materials they bought and assure us that no lien will be filed against our property.

Business

Response:

Our attorney has advised us not to comment on this matter due to pending litigation brought on by Mr. [redacted].

Business

Response:

We deny the allegations made in the Complaint dated

11/13/15, ID [redacted].

The allegation that ‘some of the materials were delivered’

is incorrect. All of the materials for the contracted project were delivered; including

a large change in patio materials because client changed his mind on the color

of the product. This change in stone created weeks of delay in completing the

project, as well as additional man hours (an expense absorbed by the

contractor) to repackage and deliver the material to supplier.

The allegation that said materials were not paid for by the

contractor is also incorrect. The entire bill to materials supplier has been

paid in full. The lien waiver will be obtained shortly.

The allegation that the contractor only completed ‘a small

amount of the work to substandard conditions’ is false. The contractor

completed a great deal of work, namely: Front walkway, garage apron, portion of

rear walkway, 60% of raised patio, sprinkler valve relocation, and propane

plumbing, paying his masonry

subcontractor $7,500.00 for the work completed. The masonry subcontractor is a

highly skilled mason who has completed over a dozen jobs for the contractor in

the past and has had, until this time, perfect client job satisfaction results.

The client’s frequent changes of mind regarding details of

the project created an untenable financial situation and work environment for

the contractor and its employees and subcontractors. The contractor ended up

losing thousands of dollars on this particular project. The higher cost of a

new contractor for the client is not the fault of the contractor. $10,000 is more

than enough money to install a patio, stairs, and remainder of rear walkway since

all of the materials are in client’s possession to do so.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: