DC Landscape & Construction

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: This response overlooks a number of important details as it pertains to this project and the reasoning behind our request for a refund. Our request encompasses estimate #2160, #1204, #1145 and only the bathroom barn door line item from estimate #1198. While I understand our property may be located in a rural area there is a code of ethics that must be followed when supplying a service or product to the general public and accepting payment. Mr. [redacted]’s website states “We guarantee the highest quality service at fair rates.” We feel we are within our right to expect work completed and paid for to meet basic building/safety codes and not place our family or others at risk. I have attached the detailed invoice from the contractor hired to repair/finish the project that coincides with Mr. [redacted]’s estimate #1260. This invoice calls into question the amount of work Mr. [redacted] claims to have completed vs. what was actually done. [redacted], the owner of A.H.S Construction is very well respected in the building industry and is available to field to any questions regarding this project. We have yet to address the roof that needs to be replaced or the cedar piles left however we plan to use this refund to address those issues amongst others created by Mr. [redacted]. Below is the text message thread with Mr. [redacted] regarding the request for an additional $6K payment for flooring material. Mr. [redacted] had been paid $11,725.00 for job #1260(attached) prior to this request for an additional $6K payment. Text Message conversation with Mr. [redacted] on 8/19 Mr. [redacted] Understood, well then I can order them today if you can send me the draw?  Response: I will pay the draw today Mr. [redacted] Thank you, I will text you to confirm before placing order While Mr. [redacted] claims the $6K payment was not for flooring material I am not sure why that was not made clear in the above text message as he specifically stated that he needed the draw in order to place the order for flooring material.  We never received the flooring materials or a refund for this amount. The following email was sent to Mr. [redacted] on August 26th requesting resolution on the $6K payment however we never received a response that specifically addressed this request. From: [redacted] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:18 PMTo: ' <[redacted] Mr. [redacted], Unfortunately things did not go well on this past project and Paige and I made the decision to move in another direction in the best interest of all parties. The contracted amount(attached) was for $21,650.00 of which you have been paid $17,750.00. I understand some work has been done however 82% of the project has not been completed so a refund is a fair request. We feel that $6,900.00(last draw/barn door cost) should be refunded. We are willing to accept the materials needed for the flooring and garage installations in lieu should you choose. If you prefer to deliver on the materials we would like the contact information of the vendor you ordered from as well as the PO number so we can have these items shipped directly to us. You have not shared product detail regarding the floors so we would like to review before agreeing.  If you have these items in your possession it would be best to return the items to the store so we can pick them up directly from the vendor.      It is our hope that we can settle this quickly so we can all move forward in a positive manner. We wish you and your business nothing but the best moving forward and harbor no ill will. Thanks in advance for your prompt response.   We did in fact fire Mr. [redacted] and DC Landscaping and Construction on August 26th as the language in the agreement stated the project would be completed on that date(attached). Unfortunately very little work had been completed or effort made to finish the project by that date. By this date the only items completed from estimate #2160 was the removal of the carpet/tile and removal/patching of the popcorn ceilings. Mr. [redacted] claims to have installed the roof of the garage by this date however the garage was a carport conversion so the roof structure was already in place. Mr. [redacted] did replace the shingles with a metal roof however this work was paid under estimate #1204. We felt it was fair to give Mr. [redacted] until the completion date promised to deliver on his word.  The timeline for this project was determined by Mr. [redacted] as we were moving from another state and needed to align our relocation around the completion date, this was made very clear to Mr. [redacted] on several occasions. We assumed his ability to deliver on a date that he set was a reasonable expectation as that has been our experience with other contractors we have worked with in the past. We asked Mr. [redacted] if he could finish the project early on a few occasions as my wife and children were living in a hotel at the time at a cost of $600.00 per week. No reference was ever made or acknowledged in a positive manner to delaying the project beyond the August 26th.  Had Mr. [redacted] explained that it was our responsibility to “crack the whip” on him in regards to finishing the project in a timely manner he should have made that clear from the start as we would have selected another contractor.  It is important to note that in the final days of project Mr. [redacted] sent (1) worker to our house without tools or direction on work to perform, this action did not suggest that Mr. [redacted] had any intention of finishing this project. Mr. [redacted] did send a note stating that he was dealing with a health issue however he said his crew would be out in his absence which never took place.      Mr. [redacted] also claims to have completed a number of projects for free however there was a cost associated with all work performed. The only work done for free would have been repairs/corrections for mistakes made or misquoted by Mr. [redacted] or his crew who were often left unsupervised, I apologize that we do not view this as a perk.   We did solicit bids from other contractors however we did not force Mr. [redacted] to match their pricing as we were content to go with another vendor, looking back that would have been a blessing. Below are items Mr. [redacted] claims he performed for free vs. what took place.   ·         Mr. [redacted] did install a few new light fixtures however his crew removed/ broke/disposed the original light fixtures in the house(picture attached) so we had no choice in the matter. This was not a cost or time constraint we expected to incur.  It is important to note that A.H.S Construction installed a number of the light fixtures as well as the canned lights that were left incomplete, not started or installed incorrectly by Mr. [redacted].  ·         Mr. [redacted] agreed to remove a skytube(not skylight) in our living room however he was paid  $300.00(check #[redacted]) for this service per his request. The skytube was never removed as shown in the attached picture. ·         Cedar – Mr. [redacted] solicited us requesting to cut/remove cedar trees from our property as he had an agreement in place with someone who would purchase the trunks from him. I agreed as he said he would do this at a cost of $1,500.00 which would cover the rental of a bobcat and his crew as his profits would come from the trunks sold. After starting on the project Mr. [redacted] sent notification that his agreement fell through and that he would not be able to cut more or remove the trees cut as he was now upside down on the project. Mr. [redacted] suggested that he rent a chipper instead of hauling the debris off property at a cost of $500.00. We preferred to have the limbs removed as originally agreed however we were willing to have the limbs chipped as we would be able to use the mulch for horse/walking paths at a later date. The attached pictures shows the piles of trees left onsite as no chipping was ever performed or mulch piles left as agreed. When my wife met Mr. [redacted] at the property on August 25th to let him know that we had made the decision to go with another contractor he was very angry and made several off color comments that we felt were inappropriate. Thankfully our well vendor was onsite at the time and witnessed the event. Mr. [redacted] has also sent several threatening emails to my personal email address in response to our filling with the Revdex.com. Due to Mr. [redacted]’s aggressive nature we are willing to accept a huge financial lose on this and only accept $6,900.00 to help cover some of the costs/damages caused by Mr. [redacted] and D&C Landscaping and Construction.  We would prefer to have the roof replaced and cedar removed or chipped by a Revdex.com approved licensed contractor at Mr. [redacted]’s expense however we are willing to accept a refund in lieu as we are not comfortable having any of this work performed by Mr. [redacted] or any employee of D&C Landscaping and Construction. Mr. [redacted] claims he returned( or we stole according to his emails) the final draw payment of $6,000.00 however that is not true and has been verified by our credit card vendor on numerous occasions. Had we received the refund of $6K as requested on August 26th we would not have needed to file a complaint with the Revdex.com.  It is our intention to come to a resolution on this matter through the Revdex.com or mediation so we can move forward with our lives and act as an example for others.

I have said what I had to say. I do not agree with what [redacted] is saying. I have every statement on email, text, pictures, receipts, etc. to back up what I have said, which is the truth.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
We have received DC
Construction’s response to our initial complaint, and will offer our rebuttal
to his response, point by point.
DC Construction (hereafter
DCC) writes, “Starting with whatever he
is deeming to be inadequacy and unsafe work, as it is an inspectors job to pass
or fail the builders work, and/or to clarify specific ruling to whether
something is up to code.” DCC is correct: it is an inspector’s job is to
pass or fail construction work, and on September 16th, a City of
Austin inspector reviewed DCC’s work and found the following failures, as noted
in the report left at the worksite: “joist and subfloor will need to be 18”
above ground or be treated … Engineer or architect letter required on
foundation for addition”.
DCC’s subs had used
untreated wood for the subfloor; upon receiving the inspector’s opinion and pointing
this out to DCC, we received another invoice from DCC estimating that his remediation
of the problem his team had created would cost us, the customer, an additional
$520. Months later, after we had finally fired DCC, we paid an independent subcontractor
over $600 to fix the inadequate subfloor work.
As the City of Austin inspector
further notes, DCC’s foundation work would require outside authorization to
pass inspection. DCC had failed to prepare the proper foundation for the
bathroom expansion, using concrete pads floating on the ground instead of proper
rebar-reinforced spread foot piers. Independent engineers and architects we consulted
about DCC’s work agreed that the concrete-pad approach was indefensible for
inspection purposes and that they could not, as the situation stood, supply the
required letter to pass inspection. When this was brought to DCC’s attention,
DCC charged us an additional $650 to dig holes and place sono-tube forms. Once
dug, the sono-tubes sat empty in their holes and unfilled for weeks during
inclement weather that compromised the integrity of the forms and filled with
water and dirt. This inability to complete this work is just one examples of
DCC’s inability to complete tasks. 
Even had they been
completed, the sono-tube piers did not allow for proper spread foot, rebar-reinforced
footings.  DCC should have known this
basic code requirement for foundation footings, as it is cited in the 7th Edition “Code Check” guide DCC provided at the worksite. After multiple
conversations about the importance of complying with code, DCC brought the
guide as a reference, and as a reason to keep DCC on the job, claiming it would
“keep him honest”. Despite this sort of claimed adherence to the code, upon reviewing
DCC’s revised sono-tube solution, outside engineers – as required by the
inspector - determined that they would be unable to support DCC’s fix. We had
to pay a separate contractor more $800 in addition to the funds paid to DCC to
redo the piers properly and have them poured according to code. In these two instances –
the untreated subfloor and the inadequate foundation - DCC’s work failed to
meet inspection requirements as noted by the City of Austin and outside
engineers, and ended up costing us time and money to remedy.
As to our assertion that
DCC’s work was unsafe, we found our health and safety compromised in two ways due
to shoddy building: 
First, the job that DCC’s subs
did in order to prepare our new doors for installation was unsafe: none of the
vertical supports were attached to the ground, but were left unsecure, a 20
foot span of wall floating on a concrete slab, for weeks. This issue was brought
up, but never addressed.  DCC proceeded
to install doors on the unsecured wall with no intention to anchor it to the
ground. DCC was content to leave this wall un-anchored and even offered to
cover up the work with a drywall finish out of the interior walls at additional
expense to us.
We had to hire another
outside at an additional cost of $5,400 to remove the unsafe wall and install
an anchored wall and properly install the french doors so they would not topple
over and bring the roof down. 
DCC argues that code
varies from city to city -- “As every
city has different requirments [sic] for different applications”, but
surely safety concerns are universal: no city would allow a 20-foot span of
wall to float, unanchored, on a concrete slab.
Second, DCC’s disregard for safety
is again evidenced during our roof installation.  DCC removed our old roof and failed to
properly seal the framing and left our roof open for over a month while DCC was
unable to schedule the installation of our new roof. During this period of time,
from August to October, three major rainstorms hit Austin and our home
resulting in water pouring into our home, down our walls, into our attic and
master bedroom.  Although we notified DCC
about the anticipated rain, proper preparations were not made to ensure that
our roof was sealed with a plastic membrane. As a result, water entered on home
on multiple occasions.  We spent evenings
in a panic, trying to catch and divert water flow with buckets and towels while
unable to reach DCC on the phone. After the first storm, we texted DCC to
announce another was coming, but our pleas were ignored and we flooded again.
The third storm found us in better shape, but still with the back room leaking.
DCC states that “A refund in the amount of $14,644.50 is
denied and unacceptable in regards to constant change orders to the scope of
work as well as added work; [redacted] on multiple occasions used my labor without
notifying me, for personal side projects not contracted to be performed by my
crew or company. Labor costs which I am/was responsible to pay my employees.”
DCC was never reluctant, unwilling or unable to offer services to perform
additional work. Text messages and invoices substantiate this fact. As to DCC’s
claim that labor was used without notifying him: this was never raised to our
attention and, since we paid for work that was never completed, we can only
conclude that this claim is false.
DCC then writes that “Furthermore, if [redacted] [sic] claims the work
was inadequate then how, might I ask did he allow such a project to get 90%
complete before thinking such…? As a matter of fact, I have emails requesting
added scopes of work just days before he terminated my company from the job
site.” DCC asks a legitimate question: how could we continue to use DCC’s
service when work was inadequate? Rather than terminate DCC outright, it was
our approach to work within his abilities and notify him when work was
deficient. Our documentation substantiates concerns expressed about safety,
quality of work, inability to complete work, and general concerns. DCC’s
responses consistently assert an ability to make it right with verbal
reassurances that we would be happy with the finished work. DCC’s impulse to
blame us for continuing to believe him lay bare the problem at the center of
this dispute: he was unable to perform the work to code and safety, but assured
us that everything would be fine. He repeated this line: “I promise you’ll be
happy”; we are not happy.
DCC says that “Termination came because [redacted] now has the
project to the point where he can complete it himself as he has renovated the
majority of the home himself before I was hired on.” This is patently
false. We have relied on outside contractors to fix the work that DCC was paid
for and then (a) failed to complete; (b) never started; or (c) completed
inadequately. Work that DCC failed to complete includes: bathroom extension
installation and sheetrock, and front sidewalk. Work that DCC never started includes:
exterior roof soffits and bird boxes. 
Work that DCC completed inadequately includes siding, exterior fascia,
doors and windows, wall framing, bathroom foundation, and bathroom floor joists. 
DCC states that: “Finally, upon request of [redacted], constantly
having my crew remove and reinstall work such as doors and windows three times
for his personal opinions on install methods. Windows and doors that
had already been installed completely and correctly to any code
requirement.” This is another falsehood. We did not ask DCC to install door
and windows three times based on personal installation methods: we asked them
to be installed correctly, according to manufacturer specifications which were
provided to DCC.  After the first two
installations were inadequate, we stopped work and sought independent assessment
to advise us of the deficiencies in DCC’s work. Those inadequacies included:
over tightened screws in the nailing fin; failure to anchor the doors laterally
into the frame wall (a wall which was floating unanchored to ground – refer to
earlier detail); installation of doors with door packing material wedged
between door and frame; missing door sills in door installation; out-of-plumb
door installation; and out-of-level window installation. None of these
deficiencies represent an issue over “personal opinions” but rather, a glaring
incompetency in DCC’s construction capabilities.
DCC asserts that “I have all documents as well to show proof
of [redacted] requesting for me to do "cover up" work to hide
construction he was not getting properly inspected from the city requirements,
example being drywall and electrical to cover up frame work. I declined doing
that work, so I assume that was the main reason for him terminating my company
from the project.” These are two lies. First, as proved by a text message
of July 19th, DCC urged us to skip the permitting process: “Truly, I
would say no [to applying for a permit], as it is a cause for a lot more
paperwork and delay…” Then, once we had received a stop work order and gone
through the permitting process, he urged us to cut more corners and complete
work without inspection. When it came to completing drywall in the back room,
on October 30th, DCC asked “So did you want me to submit drywall
quote to do this weekend?” We declined. DCC's blatant disregard to the permitting process and laissez-faire attitude to regulations has caused us significant stress over the past five months as we have labored to make right the poor decisions resulting from his advice. 
DCC’s final assertion that
“There is no other outstanding balance on
work needed done by my company for [redacted]. However, there is an outstanding
balance due from [redacted] for around $10k” is untrue. DCC issued an invoice after he were fired. Invoices and payments are available to show that we have paid for
work that was not completed. DCC claims to be unpaid for work related to
sanding, priming and painting siding. We paid the invoice for siding prep in
full and by DCC’s admission then, the work took him “all weekend” – not five days as
claimed in this statement.  Indeed, this
siding installation that was paid for in full was never completed and the work
that was completed was done with poor workmanship that we are having to pay
someone else to correct.
DCC’s ability to make
counter-claims to our assertions is supported not through true statements or
reliable accounts, but by poor accounting practices, exaggerations, and lies. We
hope to be made whole again through arbitration with the RevDex.com and can provide any supporting documentation upon request. 
Regards,
[redacted]

I hired Corey and his crew to install a retaining wall, matching flower beds, and a french drain. During the recent crazy rain storms I was nervous to see what would happen, but to my satisfaction everything worked perfectly! No more flooding! Corey was also able to match the wall and flower beds with my limestone house, so it looks like it all was built together. If you're looking for a great drainage and masonry company, then DC Landscape & Construction is a great choice! Good communication throughout everything with quality work done in a timely manner. I will definitely be using them again in the Summer for a new deck!

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because the business owner does not address any of our clearly articulated concerns in our initial response.
We are disappointed that he has not offered to reimburse us for the money we paid him for work that has proven inadequate, incomplete and unsafe... and we discover more deficiencies each time we move forward on finishing what he started. 
If necessary, we will pursue other avenues to gain recompense. 
Regards,
[redacted]