Eco Minded Solutions Inc

We're sad to hear you were unhappy with your design experience working with Eco Minded Solutions Customer service and Client satisfaction is of the upmost important to usWe're surprise to receive your complaint several years after the completion of your landscape design
Especially since you reached out to us after the courtyard portion of your project was complete to have us add to it and build out the backyard, and were willing to pay for the redrafting of the design.From the beginning of the project we were very interested in working with you on both the design and installation of your landscape Eco Minded Solutions even provided you a reduction in the design fee to show our interest in working together Our design drawings were consistent with industry norms, professional and unique to Eco Minded Solutions Attached is a copy of the final construction and planting design, illustrating the quality of our work.We believe the misconnect was the budget did not match your priorities You obtained several bids and voiced you were looking for the most economical solution for construction Unfortunately, we're not able to compete with the smaller companies who's pricing was below industry standards Best Regards,*** ***

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.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[redacted], It is clear that despite your self-proclaimed role as “the guy to fix things,” you have failed to perform even a rudimentary level of due diligence, such as soliciting both sides of the story or reading any of the available correspondence (some of which you were copied on), which refutes nearly all of your claims.  The facts, as supported by a substantial amount of documentation/evidence, clearly prove our complaint that Eco Minded Soultions (EMS) has failed to deliver its contractual requirements.  •       Issue #1 - The Contract states “This project shall be substantially completed (45) days from commencement unless the client makes substantive changes in the Scope of Work” (with no further qualifications or provisions). It is clear that there were no changes in the Scope of Work. During our meeting on October 12th, [redacted] led us to believe that construction would likely begin in late 2015 or early 2016 depending on the potential impacts of El Niño. The incomplete initial design took more than a month, and the two subsequent revisions took an average of nine and a half weeks (81 and 53 days respectively).  Furthermore, any claims that we caused the delays because of our own 3rd party vendors are a farce. We identified material that we liked in our initial communications with you in October, and ultimately visited National Quarries on January 29, 2016 (109 days after signing the contract). We did not meet [redacted] Friticsh of KRC Rock (a supplier of yours) until February 26, 2016 (137 days after signing the contract). This meeting was in coordination with EMS and was attended by [redacted]. We took the steps of visiting National Quarries and reaching out to [redacted] (who previously ran the custom fabrication services at the quarry) due to the extended delays in the design process. Upon expressing our concerns that material might not be available, EMS ([redacted]) recommended that we move forward with purchasing some of the material directly, which we did on June 23, 2016 (245 days after signing the contract). We also did not have a project engineer until we were told by EMS that nothing else could be done in terms of the design or providing any estimates or schedules for completion until engineering was completed (email sent from EMS on June 25, 2016, 257 days after signing the contract). Not only did we use an engineer that was referred by EMS, but EMS also provided the initial coordination with said engineer (email sent Jun 22, 2016, 254 days after signing the contract).    Clearly, based on all of the circumstances and timelines outlined above, the incredible delays were not caused by our actions, nor were they an impediment to EMS’ ability to fulfill its contractual obligations. •       Issue # 2 – The Contract calls for an initial design and two rounds of design revisions. The initial design presented on November 20, 2015 blatantly omitted well over 50% of the contracted scope of work. We expressed this both during our in-person meeting on the 20th, and again in an email sent January 18, 2016 at 8:01 AM stating “… we were disappointed that the concept provided was incomplete (i.e. it did not include any design work for the slope).  In addition, we felt that many of the major concepts and ideas discussed in our initial meeting and provided in our spreadsheet were not reflected. There were other key elements that were also mentioned, but it was indicated that they were excluded (ie: water storage).” This was discussed a third time at a subsequent meeting with EMS Principal [redacted] held on January 29, 2016 (which was also attended by [redacted] & [redacted]).  Additionally, the contract does not mention any requirement or limitation to the number of hours EMS will expend in order to fulfill its contractual obligations. Therefore, your continued attempts to justify contract completion based upon hours spent is irrelevant.       •       Issue # 3 - By hiring a licensed design build firm, the expectation was that any final designs could be built legally, a critical criteria that you failed to deliver upon. All three revisions included elements that were unbuildable due to flagrant code violations. As such, it would have been illegal for us to build the designs provided by EMS and thus EMS cannot reasonably argue that it has fulfilled its obligation. This also clearly violates the fitness for a particular purpose of contract law.  Further EMS is negligent in its obligations and consequently is liable for the damages of such negligence. You accused us of having “great difficulty listening to the advice of our designers until you could see the design changes on paper, which led to numerous unnecessary delays.” Given the degree of incompetence and ineptitude displayed by EMS over the course of this contract, we certainly were skeptical of information provided by your designers. However, we take strong exception to this allegation. A perfect example to illustrate this point: In order to address flaws that we found with the April design revision, we suggested an alternate layout with Pros/Cons/Questions as outlined in an email sent April 21, 2016 at 11:44PM. We did not receive any feedback on this idea until May 3, 2016 at 10:42 AM in an email where we were told the EMS team was not in favor of the changes. While there was little to no explanation of their decision, what was provided was inconsistent with the information we proposed. We were then told that [redacted] would complete the drawing changes based upon the meeting we had at the EMS offices on April 19th. We promptly responded on May 4th at 11:51 AM requesting that no additional formal design revisions be completed until we could get on the same page.  We requested a phone call to discuss things further on the afternoon of May 5th. Prior to the meeting, EMS provided a mock-up of what they interpreted as our idea (email sent May 5, 2016 at 2:09PM), and it was evident that their evaluation was in no way what was described in our April 21stemail. We then provided EMS our own mock-up of the design on May 5th at 9:42 PM. There was no further communication until an email from EMS (sent May 24th at 3:24PM) indicated the plan had gone into estimating. At 3:46PM, we asked about the status of our suggestions and reiterated our concern that we should not move forward with formal revisions until we were on the same page relative to those changes. A response was received from EMS on May 25th at 11:29AM stating: “When we discussed moving the BBQ etc. [redacted] sent over her sketch for moving the BBQ and the Pergola. Once I saw it, my initial misgivings, and those of the team, were allayed and thought it was very do-able.”  As illustrated, it was in fact the EMS design team that had trouble seeing design changes until they were on paper, and it was EMS that pushed to complete paper revisions, resulting in numerous unnecessary delays.  Yet the most offensive factual inaccuracy in your response was the notion that we obstructed any communication with the City of Carlsbad, and would “find a contractor who would forge ahead without City approval”. We were clear during our very first meeting with [redacted] on October 12, 2015 that we expected all work to conform to any applicable city code and that we wanted everything done “by the book” (i.e. pulling permits, etc.). His agreement to this culminated in our design agreement being signed that day. We have consistently operated in that manner, exemplified by the fact that the only permits on file for our property have been pulled since we purchased the home in 2010, which can be validated with the City of Carlsbad. This was the most significant driver in our decision to spend several thousands of dollars hiring a LATC licensed landscape architectural firm who is also a licensed (C-27 and B) contractor. We continued to communicate this expectation throughout the life of the project, yet it was clearly an area in which you failed to deliver. On at least two occasions we reiterated this requirement in written communication to EMS. On April 11, 2016 on 1:09 PM PDT, we were provided an Excel file ([redacted] Preliminary Estimate.xls) where EMS states “Please note:  permits are excluded”. On April 15, 2016 at 1:49 PM PDT, our response was as follows: “Expect all work to be performed to code including any required permits”. EMS failed to respond, and on June 10, 2016 at 12:11 PM provided a revised document ([redacted] Preliminary Estimate Revised 6-7-16.xls) with the same exact statement of exclusion (i.e. “Please note:  permits are excluded”). On June 13, 2016 at 10:59 AM, we provided the same aforementioned response.  Regarding your accusation of revisionist history associated with communication with the City of Carlsbad, the facts clearly point to EMS as the guilty party. EMS’s initial visit to the City took place after an in-person meeting in your office held on Tuesday April 19, 2016 (reference email sent April 18, 2016 at 9:18 PM for an agenda to the meeting), and subsequent email correspondence (sent April 21, 2016 at11:44 PM) where we asked about set back requirements and other code issues that EMS was unable to answer. The first mention of any conversation between EMS and the City was during a call [redacted] requested on May 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM. He informed us that he spoke with a city planner who insisted that our HOA would not allow much of what was in the current version of our landscape design. Given that we do not have an HOA, this feedback was not credible. Further, during the conversation we provided via email (at 1:38 PM) the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) concerning slope maintenance (under Article IV), which were recorded on December 29, 1987, specifically allowing the majority of the work in question. The first credible information conveyed by EMS was not communicated until August 4th when [redacted] informed us (both via email and in person) the city code was the issue. She then pointed us to the relevant sections of said code (chapter 21.95 titled Hillside Development Regulations along with the Hillside Development and Design Guidelines, implemented in 1998).  As a licensed landscape architect, it would be reasonable for us to assume that you would be familiar with the requirements for the Professional Standards of Care of a landscape architect. As that is clearly not the case, let us refer you to section 2670 Rules of Professional Conduct paragraph (b)(1) of the LATC website (http://www.latc.ca.gov/laws_regs/pa_all.shtml#2649.): “In designing a project, a landscape architect shall have knowledge of all applicable building laws, codes, and regulations. A landscape architect may obtain the advice of other professionals (e.g., attorneys, engineers, and other qualified persons) as to the intent and meaning of such laws, codes, and regulations and shall not knowingly design a project in violation of such laws, codes, and regulations.”  That said, did EMS design a project without knowledge of the applicable building laws, codes and regulations? Or did you knowingly design a project in violation of those same laws, codes and regulations?  In either case, that is clearly in violation of the aforementioned Standards of Care.  Similarly, any reasonable independent landscape architect (expert) would agree that addressing our questions and concerns with timely responses is a requirement of the Professional Standards of Care of a landscape architect. Yet, throughout the life of our project we did not receive direct feedback or responses to any of the detailed comments and questions that was sent for each of the submitted designs. These were only partially addressed through the revision of the design (which as previously shown, were far from timely). This was explained by EMS in an email sent June 25, 2016 at 11:49AM, where [redacted] wrote that our comments and concerns, “…play a minor role to the major concern of identifying and quantifying the overall scope of this project.” The following exchange, perfectly exemplifies this lack of communication after the final design revision was presented on June 7, 2016. June 10, 2016 12:13 PM (email) – Electronic files provided three days later for review/comment (due to EMS email server issues)June 13, 2016 10:59 AM (email) – We provided our feedback on this design revision, including a specific request asking when we could get a response. June 15, 2016 1:50 PM (phone) – [redacted] called EMS ([redacted]) to confirm that EMS had received our feedback and to again request a timeline on when we would get a response (answer was a couple of days). June 22, 2016 10:00 AM – Email requesting status on response to our comments/feedback, and informing EMS of items we purchased from [redacted].June 22, 2016 10:03 AM – Email from EMS indicating that they were waiting on an invoice from the engineer and that he ([redacted]) would touch base later in the day or the following day.June 22, 2016 3:51 PM – Email from EMS with invoice for [redacted].  Design comments/feedback not addressed.June 23, 2016 2:34 PM – Email from [redacted] with questions on engineering process and follow up request for status on design comments/feedback.June 25, 2016 11:49 AM – Email from EMS stating that our comments/feedback/questions “…play a minor role to the major concern of identifying and quantifying the overall scope of this project. Rest assured, they will be addressed.”June 27, 2016 10:50 AM – Email from [redacted] expressing concern about the lack of response to our feedback/comments/questions along with frustration over the extended design delays.June 28, 2016 (Various) – Emails exchanged regarding engineering, concerns over design comments/feedback and design delays not addressed.June 30, 2016 4:11 PM – Email from EMS confirming engineering meeting on the 5th, concerns over design comments/feedback and design delays not addressed.July 7, 2016 10:08 PM – Email to EMS regarding engineeringJuly 8, 2016 7:51 AM – Email from EMS confirming request from the 7th and indicating that an additional meeting/conversation between HTK and EMS was required.  Concerns over design comments/feedback and design delays not addressed.July 25, 2016 4:34 PM – Email to EMS again requesting status of our project, namely a response to our design comments/feedback and design delays. July 26, 2016 10:17 AM – Email from EMS ([redacted]) requesting an in person meeting with us and principal [redacted].  Various communication (back and forth) to coordinate meeting time. July 29, 2016 (Meeting @ EMS) – Meeting primarily addressed path forward for design delays.  Detailed response on design comments/feedback not received. August 3, 2016 3:53 PM – Email from [redacted] providing a path forward and indicating that new point of contact [redacted] will review in detail our comments/feedback/questions. Various back and forth logistical emails also exchanged.August 4, 2016 12:36 PM – Email from EMS informing us of meeting with the City of Carlsbad which made some of our questions/concerns/feedback OBE. By August 4, 2016, 52 days had passed since we provided detailed comments/feedback/questions to EMS regarding the June design revision, and had yet to receive a response. This is just one of many similar examples demonstrating the communication by EMS was neither timely nor detailed. Further, it was wholly inconsistent w/ the Professional Standards of Care for a Landscape Architect.  As far as reimbursements are concerned, the request to refund [redacted] costs is directly attributable to EMS’ failure to perform the Contract and failure to perform in accordance with the Professional Standards of Care for a Landscape Architect as outlined above. Additionally, this cost was a direct result of EMS’ insistence that nothing else could be done until the engineering was completed. We expressed our concern (email dated June 27, 2016) with proceeding with engineering prior to finalizing the design, which was reiterated by the engineer. In short, had EMS completed the contract as scheduled, known or researched applicable building/landscape codes, and provided a design that was buildable, these costs would not have been incurred. Similarly, with regards to the French door; had EMS been a competent design-build company, known what could and could not be built, or checked with the city promptly after signing the contract, we wouldn’t have purchased the door.   We have attempted to be fair and reasonable by omitting other damages caused by EMS, namely the interest on more than $350k in loans that we took to pay for our project. However, that inclination is waning the longer this drags out and the longer it takes EMS to take one iota of responsibility for its lack of performance. While we appreciate your incessant reminders pointing us to arbitration, fortunately state and federal law provides us with many other alternatives. Those include, but are not limited to: contacting your contractor and landscape architecture licensing boards, applicable bond companies, working with the Revdex.com, professional associations (CLCA, APLD, ASLA), helping educate potential future customers of EMS by providing thorough and factual reviews (such as this) on websites such as [redacted], etc., along with small claims litigation for which the San Diego Superior Court advice line has indicated that judges typically will allow small claims to proceed even when there is an arbitration clause due to the high cost to all parties to pursue arbitration (compared to small claims). We are certainly willing to continue pursuing all of these alternatives in order to resolve this issue.  
Regards,
[redacted] & [redacted]

[redacted] & [redacted], On behalf of Eco Minded Solutions (EMS), I would like to address your "Demand for Reimbursement" dated September 2nd, 2016, your subsequent complaint to the Revdex.com and your subsequent emails.   After carefully reviewing the events that transpired with your project with both [redacted] and [redacted], I firmly believe that the majority of your complaint can be traced back to your refusal to allow [redacted] to clear your plans with the City of Carlsbad because; ·        You wanted to first see a completed set of plans without the City's clearance. ·        If you liked the plan and the City did not approve it, you would find a contractor who would forge ahead without City approval. ·        You were insistent that your CC&R's allowed you to proceed with the design, despite [redacted]'s concerns. ·        Only after [redacted] brought you the information that the design would not be approved by the City, did you start to re-write the history of the discussions to your advantage by claiming that EMS did not do their due diligence.   In response to your varied complaints, EMS takes the following positions: 1.      You have requested $3,500 for services not rendered according to the design agreement and contract dated October 12, 2015. Please be informed that EMS delivered the services exactly as specified in our contract. In fact, our design and management team exceeded our contractual obligations by collectively providing well over 100 hours of design time, redesign time, face to face meeting time, multiple site visits and advocacy with the City of Carlsbad and your engineer. As such, EMS will not be able to provide a refund for the services that were provided according to the contract. 2.      Your request for reimbursement of $329 for HTK Structural Engineers site visit: Please be reminded that the engineer was outside the scope of our contract. In fact, you hired your contractor outside the scope of the EMS contract. As such, EMS is unable to reimburse you for these costs. 3.      Your request that EMS reimburse you $2,150 for a French door that was purchased. You informed [redacted] that you had already purchased the upstairs door for the balcony and EMS should not include that in bid.  Our understanding was that it was purchased from the contractor who installed the new windows for your home.  The door was neither part of our design nor part of our scope of work. As such, we are unable to reimburse you for the French Door. 4.      Your statement that EMS failed to perform in accordance with the Professional Standards of Care of a landscape architect: EMS would like to remind you that your contract provides you with the opportunity to air your grievances using the mediation and arbitration provisions in your contract. Should you pursue that option, EMS intends to provide independent experts in the field who we are confident will testify to the fact that we far exceeded the Professional Standards. 5.      With respect to your concern about time delays: We intend to prove that the project delays stemmed from your 3rd party stone contractor [redacted] and your project engineer.  Specifically, a large component of your landscape project incorporated custom stone and boulder features that you selected from [redacted]’s yard.  Our team attempted to work with [redacted] on finalizing the selected items and incorporate them into the design, but [redacted] was often non-responsive despite numerous attempts to reach him. This alone created significant project delays.  Furthermore, the 45-day substantial project completion clause in our design agreement is based on our average design time turn around. 6.      With regard to your concern about lack of communication: Should this go to mediation or arbitration, EMS will provide documentation of timely and detail responses to your emails and calls with regular updates as to where your project was at in the design process. We also intend to demonstrate that you had great difficulty listening to the advice of our designers until you could see the design changes on paper, which led to numerous unnecessary delays.     In summary, we deeply regret that the City of Carlsbad's regulations prevented you from creating your vision for the back yard of your dreams. However, we regret that you are choosing to ignore your role in demanding that EMS proceed with a design without clearing it with the City. In an attempt to resolve this matter without going through the process of mediation and/or arbitration, EMS is willing to provide a refund of $600 in return for a full release.   Please feel free to contact me by email no later than December 31st, 2016 with your decision.  Sincerely, [redacted]

This emails was sent to the complainant on September 9, 2016. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. From: [redacted] <[redacted] Date: Friday, September 9, 2016 at 12:12 PM To: [redacted] <[redacted]>, [redacted]...

<[redacted] Subject: Re: Demand for Reimbursement [redacted] & [redacted], We are in receipt of your letter outlining the reasons for requesting a refund of your landscape design fee and additional expenses.  Unfortunately, we respectfully disagree with the issues that you have raised. Specifically, not only have we delivered the services specified in our contract, but our design and management team exceeded our contractual obligations by collectively providing well over 100 hours of design time, redesign time, face to face meeting time, multiple site visits and advocacy with the City of Carlsbad and the engineer.  While we understand that you are disappointed that the City of Carlsbad restrictions preclude the use of your slope in the way you had originally hoped, please be reminded that Eco Minded Solutions informed you on several occasions during the design process that such restrictions could impede your ability to achieve your goals. In conclusion, we regret that Eco Minded Solutions will not be able to provide you with any refund. Should you disagree with our decision, our Design Agreement's dispute resolution clause does afford you the ability to address your concerns through arbitration. Sincerely,[redacted] | PrincipalEco Minded Solutions, Inc. |[redacted]                    [redacted]   [redacted]                    [redacted]