Graystone Ventures

Review: The contractor (a home builder) applied incorrect finish to 3 field finished wood garage doors, and applied it under incorrect environmental conditions. This led to voiding of the garage door warranty. The doors have become damaged from early failure of the improper finish. Multiple attempts at remediation have failed. Assurance from the contractor that they would completely refinish the doors in September 2013 were not followed through on. Their agent promised full remediation- sanding to bare wood, and proper refinishing with the manufacturer's recommended process. After 10 weeks of trying to get the contractor to complete the work, they told us we could find the repair company for them because they were too busy. Now, the home builder refuses to honor the full cost of the repair, $6250, instead offering partial reimbursement of $1500. The repair work was extensive, because they failed to follow proper procedures for the original finish. Had they done the work correctly the first time, none of this would be necessary. The doors have sustained significant damage due to their improper and poor workmanship. The contractor was negligent in not following manufacturer specifications on the original finish, and now fails to provide proper restitution for the actual costs of the repair which failed under warranty.Desired Settlement: The contractor owes us $6250 for repair of the doors, which failed under warranty. We followed their guidance on seeking a company to perform the work. The contractor refuses to accept the terms their employee promised. We have sought terms for mediation and they refuse to recognize their responsibility.

Business

Response:

Dec 4 2013

The facts are as follows:

In making the garage door selections, a process that lasted some five months, we informed the buyer (the Complainant) that a "pre-finished factory finish’ was recommended due to the nature of the wood materials and high potential for future continuous maintenance issues due to the direct Southeastern exposure on their garage doors. These concerns were expressed to the Complainant clearly and on more than one occasion. They declined the factory pre-finish option offered and chose for the doors to be field stained despite our express concerns and warnings.

Secondly, we dispute the claim that the interior stain that the Complainant stated in their letter was the stain used in the initial application in June of 2011, prior to them taking occupancy. Our contractor and our field superintendent have confirmed, that the proper exterior stain and finishes were used at the time of the initial application on the Complainant's garage doors. Our conclusion is that the stain that the Complainant has in their possession was used on the interior rails and somehow confusion between the two has, unfortunately, occurred or claim to that effect made.

Thirdly, we dispute the Complainant’s characterization of "admission of responsibility* stated in their communication to us. We attempted, in our offer to pay a portion of the contractor’s proposal (the contractor selected unilaterally by the Complainant), to do as we have always done with our customers and that is to be reasonable and work with them to solve problems or their concerns, even if the problem and/or concern is not our fault. We do this, sometimes even to our detriment. In choosing the field staining option for their garage doors, they carried the same warranty as any other stained or painted item in the Complainant's home. When we did a six month touch up on other paint/stain Hems in their home, per our warranty agreement, we also addressed and executed some touch up items on their garage doors. Our obligation extended to a one year warranty on the door finish. After the warranty period was over, our supervisor tried to help the Complainant in finding a finishing contractor to continue the homeowner maintenance needed for the garage doors. Our Supervisor does everything he possibly can to satisfy our customers, whether during or beyond their warranty period. More often than not, he has been able to do just that. The Complainant points this out in their correspondence to us that he has been most faithful in dealing with any issues at the house.

it is our belief that we have gone beyond reasonable efforts to assist in the maintenance of these doors and our offer of $1,500 to share in a portion of the charges was merely an extension of that courtesy.

We believe the original finishes were done to standard building industry specifications and practice*. This was satisfactory to the Complainant at closing and was done specifically at their direction. The selections made, as stated above, have been adversely affected, exacerbated and accelerated by an environmental issue. Specifically, that the orientation of the doors to the Southeast causes the summer sun to hit the doors for lengthy parts of the day and thereby causes extremely high temperatures on the surface Of the doors placing great stress on the finishes and thereby, requires very high rates of maintenance. We believe the environmental aspects of the sun exposure to the Complainant’s garage doors will continue to cause a maintenance issue that will require the Complainant to maintain a schedule of touching up the doors as long as the effects of the sun and temperatures continue.

Unfortunately, the Complainant did not heed our warnings or concerns regarding the field finishing. We feel badly that the very nature of these products is causing the Complainant to have to perform a higher degree of maintenance than the Complainant anticipated but we specifically warned of these effects and are not responsible for these subsequent results

In addition, the Complainant makes the statement, “We have sought terms for mediation and they refuse to recognize their responsibility.’ We believe the Complainant meant to say remediation since no effort for mediation or arbitration has been made.

We reiterate our initial offer of a courtesy contribution of $1,500 even though we have no liability or responsibility relating to this issue.