Initial Business Response /* ([redacted]0, 6, 2017/08/30) */
In response to the claim presented; ms. [redacted] was quoted a price of $[redacted] to paint the front face of the house facing the street and a small section on the second storey that also faces the street , in addition a cost of $[redacted] to install 2...
windows as well the owner was to supply paint. These criteria have been met. In addition she requested that I paint the brickmould on the new windows to match the other windows, in which an additional cost was added of $[redacted] and was relayed there would be no warranty as this was a bad idea. As the contract was completed, she became upset as she also expected half of the east side painted , even though it was not part of the original contract. Again I offered a deal to paint 2 coats on the upper portion for $[redacted] and she agreed. Also as an extra was some trim added to the front window and shingles replaced at a cost of $**. Instead of actually buying the paint as required she instead sent $[redacted] and had me purchase materials. To date I have received $[redacted] for the work plus roughly $[redacted] for materials she was required to supply. As far as the $[redacted] for the extras she requested and agreed to nothing has been paid as she believes the cost of the work should be less. Therefore any warranty that may have been allowed is now void due to non payment ,as well the **%hst required to be charged by the government was added to the bill as an amendment also due to non payment. As for the shrubs , she was told originally a year ago that they would have to be cut down completely, but as we started the project it was determined that only a portion needed to be removed. After nearly 2 weeks from the time the shrubs were cut , as they were a safety issue, nothing was said until this dispute. I believe she should have taken the initiative and hired someone else to remove them if they were that important. All that being said her account will be placed in collection within 30 days of the final invoice for th balance owing. Regards [redacted] , Day One Construction Inc.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* ([redacted]0, 8, 2017/09/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Dear Sir/Madam:
As already submitted - the vendor presented me with an original bill which included HST (as indicated by the HST number on the top of the invoice). This was the binding contract to the work outlined and was presented to the Revdex.com on August 22. $[redacted] has been paid on a total of $[redacted]. When the contractor repairs the existing bubbles on the paint and repairs the said damage to my property, the remaining **% will be paid.
There was NO occasion or discussion of the hedges coming down completely - and this is more ludicrous recreating of events. Clearly, someone who presents a second invoice with a new amount is not a person of credibility or integrity. If the contractor wishes to pursue collections, I'll be happy to stand up in small claims court with documented evidence of misrepresentation and property damage. I will also be happy to supply the evidence to [redacted] and he can explain the invoice variance to them directly. To say that the work is "no longer under warranty" because I have quesitoned him on the repair to the property damage will be interesting to hear more about when this goes further in small claims court. My position remains: the original invoice is the only valid document. The quote I was given in writing was ALL INCLUSIVE for the work, Re submitting an invoice is frauduent and evidence of tax fraud. I will pay the full amount of the original invoice when the damage has been repaired. And the work will be warranteed or I want it on record that this vendor does NOT stand behind the quality of his work. Whether he pays taxes or not has no bearing on whether he used good judgement about painting on wet shingles.
Most sincerely,
[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* ([redacted]0, 6, 2017/08/30) */
In response to the claim presented; ms. [redacted] was quoted a price of $[redacted] to paint the front face of the house facing the street and a small section on the second storey that also faces the street , in addition a cost of $[redacted] to install 2...
windows as well the owner was to supply paint. These criteria have been met. In addition she requested that I paint the brickmould on the new windows to match the other windows, in which an additional cost was added of $[redacted] and was relayed there would be no warranty as this was a bad idea. As the contract was completed, she became upset as she also expected half of the east side painted , even though it was not part of the original contract. Again I offered a deal to paint 2 coats on the upper portion for $[redacted] and she agreed. Also as an extra was some trim added to the front window and shingles replaced at a cost of $**. Instead of actually buying the paint as required she instead sent $[redacted] and had me purchase materials. To date I have received $[redacted] for the work plus roughly $[redacted] for materials she was required to supply. As far as the $[redacted] for the extras she requested and agreed to nothing has been paid as she believes the cost of the work should be less. Therefore any warranty that may have been allowed is now void due to non payment ,as well the **%hst required to be charged by the government was added to the bill as an amendment also due to non payment. As for the shrubs , she was told originally a year ago that they would have to be cut down completely, but as we started the project it was determined that only a portion needed to be removed. After nearly 2 weeks from the time the shrubs were cut , as they were a safety issue, nothing was said until this dispute. I believe she should have taken the initiative and hired someone else to remove them if they were that important. All that being said her account will be placed in collection within 30 days of the final invoice for th balance owing. Regards [redacted] , Day One Construction Inc.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* ([redacted]0, 8, 2017/09/01) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Dear Sir/Madam:
As already submitted - the vendor presented me with an original bill which included HST (as indicated by the HST number on the top of the invoice). This was the binding contract to the work outlined and was presented to the Revdex.com on August 22. $[redacted] has been paid on a total of $[redacted]. When the contractor repairs the existing bubbles on the paint and repairs the said damage to my property, the remaining **% will be paid.
There was NO occasion or discussion of the hedges coming down completely - and this is more ludicrous recreating of events. Clearly, someone who presents a second invoice with a new amount is not a person of credibility or integrity. If the contractor wishes to pursue collections, I'll be happy to stand up in small claims court with documented evidence of misrepresentation and property damage. I will also be happy to supply the evidence to [redacted] and he can explain the invoice variance to them directly. To say that the work is "no longer under warranty" because I have quesitoned him on the repair to the property damage will be interesting to hear more about when this goes further in small claims court. My position remains: the original invoice is the only valid document. The quote I was given in writing was ALL INCLUSIVE for the work, Re submitting an invoice is frauduent and evidence of tax fraud. I will pay the full amount of the original invoice when the damage has been repaired. And the work will be warranteed or I want it on record that this vendor does NOT stand behind the quality of his work. Whether he pays taxes or not has no bearing on whether he used good judgement about painting on wet shingles.
Most sincerely,
[redacted]