Don't Blink Painting Inc

[redacted] W. [redacted] St
San Diego CA [redacted]
RE:
Complaint ID [redacted]
 
[redacted]
Revdex.com
4747
Viewridge Ave #200
San
Diego, CA 92123-1688
858-496-2131
 
Dear [redacted],
 
I am in receipt of your
recent email correspondence [att. #1]. Honestly, I am perplexed that you are
requesting more supporting documents. I am concerned (1) that my response to
the Revdex.com of  [redacted] [att. #2] was
misplaced or, that, if it was not misplaced, (2) that there has been no
response from the contractor.
Accordingly, I herewith
resubmit my response, together with the following supporting documents: 
 
Correspondence of [redacted] to
contractor’s attorney [att. #3]
Inspection Results, from
Industry Expert, [redacted] Consulting [att. #4]
Bid to remediate from [redacted]
Painting [att. #5]
Bid to remediate from King of
Painters [att. #6]
Bid to remediate from Able
Sandblasting [att. #7]
Original Contract and Payment
Statements [att. #8]
 
Per pages 7 & 8 of my
response to you at the Revdex.com of [redacted], my analysis is that the most cost
effective and best result to remediate will be to (a) have the railings
sandblasted (stripped) clean and resurfaced by the sandblasting company, Able
Sandblasting and (b) have the decks recoated and the office door re-prepped and
repainted by King of Painters.
 
Finally, to answer your
question, “why the issues mentioned in the complaint are not resolved” ~ that
is because the contractor failed, twice to perform with work product as agreed
and at suitable quality. The contractor ignored constraints against the use of
spray. Paint was sprayed on solar panels. Upon returning to remediate, the
contractor failed to protect the decks from splatter and overspray. Having
failed at remediating issues that had been patiently explained to the contractor,
after the time for completion of the contract had passed, with great
exasperation I decided NOT to allow him to return for a third attempt. I
offered to release him from liability if he would just go away and not expect
further payments. Instead, I received a letter from his attorney.
 
Now that I have gone to the
trouble of soliciting an expert opinion, of dialoging with the contractor’s
attorney, of obtaining three bids and determining what might be the best path
to remediate the problems caused by this contractor, Don’t Blink Painting, I
opine that the ONLY resolution will be for the contractor to pay me for the
expense of remediation, which per my analysis will require a payment of $791 to
me from the contractor.
 
IE:
$5,870
total contract, less back-charges of $2,300 = $3,570 allowable for portions of
the work (power wash house and paint fascia) adequately performed.
 
But
I have allowed the $5,870 figure to stand, and am willing to subtract from my
sum of all costs to remediate (which includes expense to clean solar panels)
which total $6,661. This leaves the contractor owing me $791.
 
IF I
were to go ballistic, I would not allow the total contract figure to stand,
would compute my damages from the figure of $3,570 (allowable for portions of
the work adequately performed), and DEMAND that the contractor pay me $3091.
 
I believe that I have been
reasonable and fair. I now would appreciate the Revdex.com’s assistance in a
successful resolution of this mess.
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted]
 
Attachments: 1-8

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. 
Due to the complete and extensive substance of my response, plus analysis, I have included my specifics in the attached PDF. If you prefer to receive this in text or word format, please let me know.
Here is the link to photos documenting my assertions: http://tempuri.org/tempuri.html
You have my permission to post this statement, and to reference the photos, online.
Regards,
[redacted]

In response to complaint ID# [redacted]
There have been several attempts to address the complaints
against Don’t Blink Painting Inc. by this client, however, for several reasons
that I explain here, resolution has not been possible. I welcome the
opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding this project.
Before I address each complaint individually, I wish to
preface this by saying that Don’t Blink strives to learn from each client what
end results they are looking for, discusses all the options available to the
client given their expectations and their budgets, and always stands behind the
work. As this client admits, Don’t Blink returned several times in an attempt
address the client’s concerns. It is unfortunate that Don’t Blink was not able
to reach a happy resolution in this case, however, as our track record on websites
like Angie’s List show, our customers’ rate of satisfaction is very high on
average.
The power washing of this client’s house was quoted for the
entire home. Upon arriving to start the work, the client inquired as to what
costs savings could be had if only the fascia and railings. I gave a verbal
estimation at half the price for the entire home and the client ultimately
decided to have the entire home washed. I am not sure to what the client refers
when she says that I “attempted to limit power washing to the eaves only.”
Perhaps there was a communication breakdown, but there is no point that I can
recall where I indicated that less work would be done than what was included in
the quote.
The client claims that the power washing was done after the
rails were prepped and primed. This is not an accurate account. Work surfaces
must be cleaned before they can be primed or painted, or else the paint will
not adhere. Our order of work for the railings standard: scrape with a wire
brush, sand, wash, prime and paint. This is exactly what we did. It was
explained to the client that the condition of the railing could be restored in
several ways, each with different results. The cleanest look could be achieved
with having a professional company powder-coat the railing. This would most
likely involve disassembling the railing. The second best option would be to
apply a chemical to the railing that would facilitate removal of the flaking
paint with wire brush and sanding. The chemical free-option would be to wire
brush and sand the railing only. The client chose the third option. The client
did not want to use any harsh chemical and we respected that and were
transparent that the end result would not be as clean as the other
options.  The imperfections the
client noted in the railing project are unavoidable given the chosen method.
Nonetheless, we did return and attempted to address all the areas she was
concerned with.
With regards to the painting, I discussed with the client
that fact that the intricate details in the railings, which included flower
designs, would make complete application to all surfaces challenging. I
recommended a spray application for this reason and received her verbal
approval to spray before commencing. The client did express concern about the
solar panel, and we responded by covering the solar panels before spraying.  The client actually acknowledged the painters
after the work was done for taking the extra time and care to cover the solar
panels. It is surprising that overspray could have occurred. I did not
personally inspect the solar panels before painting and therefore I cannot say
whether the overspray to which the client refers was pre-existing.
Finally, the office door had several problem areas. On the
jamb, there was substantial sun damage and at the bottom of the door, there was
water damage and a hole. I explained that in this condition, the door could not
be restored to “like new”. I plainly explained the limitations and said we
would do the best we could.
After having returned several times to address the issues
that client had with the job, and considering that throughout the project the
client was advised of all the options available to her and what to expect for
the results to be, the dissatisfaction with our service is alarming. At one
point, the client firmly advised us to just walk away from the project and not
pursue collection of the remaining balance. I respectfully disagree that Don’t
Blink provided “shoddy work”. We did the best we could given the options the
client chose.