East Coast General Contractors, Incorporated

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:On October 16th when ECGC returned to fix errors in the deck's original construction, multiple problems were laid out [redacted] was available in the morning when problems were first pointed out From the first, John G [redacted] was very argumentative regarding the errors in the deck's construction He acknowledged that the only way to fix the deck properly was to take it down and rebuild it, which he also acknowledged he was unwilling to do He then spoke via the telephone to [redacted] who said that if John was unwilling to fix the deck properly, then another contractor would be contacted to do it John, however, pleaded to be given the chance to fix the deck as he saw fit and assured [redacted] that he would be satisfied with the changes that would be made At the end of his attempt on that same day, October 16th, [redacted] and [redacted] both inspected the deck but discovered it was still very clearly unsatisfactory They, again, pointed out the same structural errors along with some new problems that resulted from John's attempt at reconstruction John became very argumentative again, said he would demand more money to have the deck fixed according to structural standards, kicked over his tools, and abruptly left in the middle of the discussion about how the situation could be rectified As he was leaving, he said that he would call that evening He did not, and no plans for him to ever return to the job site were made It became clear that John had no intention of correcting the deck according to standards or our contract and so the decision was made to call upon another contractor to make the repairs When John texted [redacted] three days after he was supposed to be in contact, he was informed that measures had had to be taken to have the deck inspected and corrected At this point, we feel that John/ECGC had sufficient chance to complete the work we contracted him to do, he left us with no implication of returning, and he was paid for a job that needs to be completely redone and materials that need to be replaced Regards, [redacted] ***

After working all day Friday October 16th to address the concerns of The ***, [redacted] and ECGC discussed the remaining concernsIt was agreed ECGC would return the following week, When ECGC called to make those arrangements, ECGC was told NOT TO RETURN, making it impossible for ECGC to continue to settle the dispute.The [redacted] concern WAS NOT a damaged railing...which ECGC is unaware ofThis is the first ECGC is hearing of this concernThe remaining concerns on the 16th were atop step and kickplateAfter the deck was completed, The [redacted] decided they wanted a "seamless" deckThis was never discussed in the original contract or part of the understanding on the part of ECGC

Purchase Date: 9/30/(when the contract was signed)
Work was being done the Week of October 5-October 10/customer called ECGC (John); customer stated they were not satisfied with some details, ECGC agreed to come out to address the issuesThat was doneCustomer was
not satisfied.Unsure of the exact date but another call was made to ECGC to try to satisfy the issuesECGC waited to hear as to when the customer would like John to return to fix issues11/2/Customer told ECGC NOT to return to address the issuesCustomer stated they would get someone else to fix itECGC was willing to address the customer concerns, but was refused accessDesired outcome: ECGC does not feel that they are responsible for a FULL REFUND

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
On October 16th when ECGC returned to fix errors in the deck's original construction, multiple problems were laid out *** *** was available in the morning when problems were first pointed out From the first, John G*** was very argumentative regarding the errors in the deck's construction He acknowledged that the only way to fix the deck properly was to take it down and rebuild it, which he also acknowledged he was unwilling to do He then spoke via the telephone to *** *** who said that if John was unwilling to fix the deck properly, then another contractor would be contacted to do it John, however, pleaded to be given the chance to fix the deck as he saw fit and assured *** that he would be satisfied with the changes that would be made At the end of his attempt on that same day, October 16th, *** and *** both inspected the deck but discovered it was still very clearly unsatisfactory They, again, pointed out the same structural errors along with some new problems that resulted from John's attempt at reconstruction John became very argumentative again, said he would demand more money to have the deck fixed according to structural standards, kicked over his tools, and abruptly left in the middle of the discussion about how the situation could be rectified As he was leaving, he said that he would call that evening He did not, and no plans for him to ever return to the job site were made It became clear that John had no intention of correcting the deck according to standards or our contract and so the decision was made to call upon another contractor to make the repairs When John texted *** three days after he was supposed to be in contact, he was informed that measures had had to be taken to have the deck inspected and corrected At this point, we feel that John/ECGC had sufficient chance to complete the work we contracted him to do, he left us with no implication of returning, and he was paid for a job that needs to be completely redone and materials that need to be replaced
Regards,
*** ***

After working all day Friday October 16th to address the concerns of The ***, *** and ECGC discussed the remaining concernsIt was agreed ECGC would return the following week, When ECGC called to make those arrangements, ECGC was told NOT TO RETURN, making it impossible for ECGC to continue to settle the disputeThe *** concern WAS NOT a damaged railing...which ECGC is unaware ofThis is the first ECGC is hearing of this concernThe remaining concerns on the 16th were atop step and kickplateAfter the deck was completed, The *** decided they wanted a "seamless" deckThis was never discussed in the original contract or part of the understanding on the part of ECGC

Purchase Date: 9/30/15 (when the contract was signed)Work was being done the Week of October 5-October 910/16 customer called ECGC (John); customer stated they were not satisfied with some details, ECGC agreed to come out to address the issues. That was done. Customer was not satisfied.Unsure of the...

exact date but another call was made to ECGC to try to satisfy the issues. ECGC waited to hear as to when the customer would like John to return to fix issues.11/2/15 Customer told ECGC NOT to return to address the issues. Customer stated they would get someone else to fix it. ECGC was willing to address the customer concerns, but was refused access.Desired outcome: ECGC does not feel that they are responsible for a FULL REFUND.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:On October 16th when ECGC returned to fix errors in the deck's original construction, multiple problems were laid out.  [redacted] was available in the morning when problems were first pointed out.  From the first, John G[redacted] was very argumentative regarding the errors in the deck's construction.  He acknowledged that the only way to fix the deck properly was to take it down and rebuild it, which he also acknowledged he was unwilling to do.  He then spoke via the telephone to [redacted] who said that if John was unwilling to fix the deck properly, then another contractor would be contacted to do it.  John, however, pleaded to be given the chance to fix the deck as he saw fit and assured [redacted] that he would be satisfied with the changes that would be made.  At the end of his attempt on that same day, October 16th, [redacted] and [redacted] both inspected the deck but discovered it was still very clearly unsatisfactory.  They, again, pointed out the same structural errors along with some new problems that resulted from John's attempt at reconstruction.  John became very argumentative again, said he would demand more money to have the deck fixed according to structural standards, kicked over his tools, and abruptly left in the middle of the discussion about how the situation could be rectified.  As he was leaving, he said that he would call that evening.  He did not, and no plans for him to ever return to the job site were made.  It became clear that John had no intention of correcting the deck according to standards or our contract and so the decision was made to call upon another contractor to make the repairs.  When John texted [redacted] three days after he was supposed to be in contact, he was informed that measures had had to be taken to have the deck inspected and corrected.  At this point, we feel that John/ECGC had sufficient chance to complete the work we contracted him to do, he left us with no implication of returning, and he was paid for a job that needs to be completely redone and materials that need to be replaced.  
Regards,
[redacted]

After working all day Friday October 16th to address the concerns of The [redacted] and ECGC discussed the remaining concerns. It was agreed ECGC would return the following week, When ECGC called to make those arrangements, ECGC was told NOT TO RETURN, making it impossible for ECGC to continue to settle the dispute.The [redacted] concern WAS NOT a damaged railing...which ECGC is unaware of. This is the first ECGC is hearing of this concern. The remaining concerns on the 16th were atop step and kickplate. After the deck was completed, The [redacted] decided they wanted a "seamless" deck. This was never discussed in the original contract or part of the understanding on the part of ECGC.