Ground Up Tree Service

Company misadvertised as to their professional certification and did ineffective and poor workIn 2013 I hired The Ground Up after the owner, [redacted], came to my house and looked at the Leyland Cypress trees (4) that were having needle blight damage as well as a fungus on my cherry trees (5. My wife paid him $1,100. as he said he offers a large discount for full payment at signing. The advertising on their website indicated they were certified by the American Society of Consulting Arborists. The website indicated a ASCA (also known as ISA) number as did their business cards. The certification was prominent in their advertising. They were supposed to come 3 times, each within 7-10 days. Each time I had to call them to come out and it would be two or three weeks between visits. All these trees are 25 to 30 ft high and the equipment they used, as I later found out, were [redacted] 2 gallon sprayers with a maximum reach of 15 ft. The needle blight was not getting any better and I called the ASSCA who informed me that the firm had not renewed their license for over a year and the owner would need to retake the test to get re-certified. I contacted [redacted] and he assured me that the chemicals he was using would work and thanked me for bringing the issue of certification to his attention. He promised to get re-certified. At this point the 3 treatments had been done with no effect on the diseases. I waited several months and watched the trees get worse and then wrote [redacted] an email asking for $500 back. He simply ignored this email as well as others previous to that. My 9/23/13 email summarized the entire situation and he never responded. I have now had to take down 2 of the 5 Leyland cypress and the cherry trees continue to be marginally healthy.I paid this firm in complete good faith and they took the money under false pretenses, did not do anywhere close to a credible job and have disregarded my communications. I work hard for my money and to have someone essentially steal from me and look me in the face while doing it is horrible. I do not want others to be taken in and that is my primary purpose of making this complaint.Desired SettlementI am seeking a very, very fair sum of $500. less than half of the money I paid.Business Response Let me begin by saying that the complaintant has gravely mistaken what actually happened regarding our project at his home. I first met with his wife when she requested a consultation. Her hisband had radically trimmed their Leylands to the point where 90% of the foliave on the trimmed branches was gone. Thus exposing internal browning and a fungal infection. I explained that those branchws may die but that it was worth a try to deep root fertilize those trees and spray for the fungal infection that was affecting the lower half of the trees. I also explained to her that her Hollywood junipers and cherry trees along the drive were in decline and should also be deep root fertilized and sprayed for preventive maintenance. Then we looked at more Leylands in the back line if their property. Which also showed signs of fungal issues. I gave her a price of $1100 to deep root fertilize the badly trimmed laylands and the trees along the driveway. I also explained that we could spray those trees as well as ALL the Leylands with out small pump sprayers and all would be included in that price of $1100. Also explaining that we could easily reach all infected areas with our small sprayers.BUT if they desired to have their trees sprayed with an industrial sprayer with a large tank and engine that pumps more volume of spray that it would be an extra cost of around $100 per tree. She said oh no and that as long as we could reach the infection with the small sprayers she would much rather save the money. So $1100 was agreed upon and I also said that I would also include 2 extra applications of spraying and do them aprox 7-10 days apart or as needed. The spraying and fertilizing work was completed and we were paid. I waited aprox 10 days or more and the spraying application was holding fine. They called me back to do the second application and so I came out and did. At that point I explained that if we can get more time between applications they would be more bennificial and that they normally last 2-4 weeks. So after about 2-3 weeks they called me again for the 3rd application. I came out the same day and did the work. At this time the trees were still looking good and holding strong with no new browning. I also told them that this was the last application in their contract but that they would most likely need to continue the spraying whether it was him or me or someone else. I had also given him an extra application of fungicide on a large batch of mushrooms that had come up in his beds. All @ no charge. But he did not seem interested in further spraying by me. It was after the second application I believe that he brought to my knowledge that he couldnt find me on the ISA website and inquired about my arborist certification. I assured him that I was certified. After looking closer I realized that my certification had indeed expired and I thanked him for bringing it to my knowledge. It was my fault for letting it expire due to not turning in my CED points. I would have to retake the test. I did tell him this but I also explained that this glitch did NOT make me stupid and take away my YEARS OF KNOWLEDGE. There are also plenty of tree companies that are not certified arborists. But besides the fact I apologized for that and explained that I had been certified for years previous and would again get recertified. I did not mean to misrepresent myself. After all this transpired and after his trees had not been sprayed for over a month he then emails me and wants $500 back because his trees were dying. My contract had more than been completed with extras done @ no charge. As I stated previously I had blatently explained to him that he needed to continue the spraying by someone even if it was not me OR ELSE HIS TREES WOULD DECLINE AND DIE. he did nothing and is now blaming me for this. Yes I did make an honest mistake regarding my certification as an arborist but I more than completed the contract with him. He is at fault for terribly trimming hos own trees to begin with and secondly for not continuing to treat his sick trees after out contract was completed. I cannot make someone care for their trees properly. I can only advise them on what is needed. The client was very happy with treatment as he should have been. It worked perfectly until he discontinued the proper treatment. The client was made aware of needing to continuw trwatment on more than one occasion. He is at fault and will by no means be getting a refund. TheConsumer Response Thank you for your following up. I refute most of the response as being false and misleading, and offer further substantiation of the truth. The only item I agree with is the scope of work he was supposed to do. When he first visited he complimented my yard and remarked it was like a park in the back. I take great care of my yard. He primarily defends his response that I did not continue treatment. In fact I indeed continued treating these trees (I have documentation) but I'll get to that later. Here are the facts:1. I am not asking for a refund because he solely killed my trees. I am asking for only half of what I paid him for two reasons. His blatant incompetence contributed to the disease progression and eventually the loss of the trees. His poor service contributed but was not the sole cause. Had he done the proper job to begin with, when the problem first arose, the trees might have been saved. He wasted months of time that could have been better utilized. Second and more important is that the public see my complaint and not use this firm.His description of the scope of work is accurate. However, he proposed a fee of $1500 but would discount to $1100 if I paid the full fee upfront. His response also indicates that he would include 2 "extra" applications. This is absurd as the contract was for 3 sprayings, nothing "extra" was offered, and he certainly didn't show up for what he calls extra sprayings.2. Prior trimming. FACT: He is correct that I trimmed some branches (allowed for Leylands) but otherwise his response is inaccurate. I trimmed the lowest branches of 2 of the 5 Leylands which had grown over the ground level deck railing, but just enough to keep them away from the deck. I cut perhaps a foot off of 4 or 5 branches and have pictures as well. It was then that I noticed the brown throughout the interior of the tree and extending to some of the outer branches up top. My trimming had nothing to do with the browning since the browning was already there before I started trimming. I only say this as his response seems to insinuate that I butchered my trees. These trees are important privacy trees so to say I knocked off 90% is ridiculous. If he had looked, some trees in my neighborhood had needle blight and I didn't see anyone trimming those. 3. FACT: He NEVER offered to use a power sprayer at $100 per tree. He stated that he had a friend who had a power sprayer on his truck (he doesn't have a truck) but his friend wanted $1000 to borrow it. Add the cost of what he would have charged to use it, it was certainly too expensive; pretty much double what he quoted the job at. especially given the fact that he assured me that his small pump up sprayers could do the job. (stated in his response). These trees are 25 to 30 feet tall with some of the ones in the back even higher. The two sprayers he used, 1 or 2 gallon handheld pump ups are rated at 10 feet according to the major manufacturers documentation. I believe he used [redacted] pumps which state 10 feet. How did plan to get that high. He did not use a ladder. This is a blatant misrepresentation that he could do the job. As respects the application, NC STATE UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION states in an article on "Managing Needle Blight on Leyland Cypress" that"Applications should soak the interior of the tree. Visibly infected trees and those immediately adjacent to them should be sprayed." He never saturated the interior with the equipment he used as it would have been impossible. To properly saturate the interior of a Leyland which has a large population of branches in the center, you have to get above the branches to do a thorough soaking. If he had come back to me and said he needed to use a more powerful sprayer because of the height I would have worked something out, perhaps using my 40ft. extension ladder. Also curious was why he always came alone and stayed less than an hour to saturate all my trees? It was at this point that I became suspicious and looked into his qualifications.5. Certification. After contacting the International Society of Arboriculture( ISA) I found he was not certified. I wrote to the ISA to have them double check and indeed he was not certified. I approached him and he was emphatic that the ISA must be mistaken or it's a "glitch" and that he is definitely is certified. On the last visit he apologized and said he forgot to renew. His response said he had to take a test to regain his certification. What if he failed the test which I don't know if he did. He did make sure that his advertisements on the web prominently displayed that he was ISA certified along with the ISA trademark. If this is his business and he is dedicate d to his craft, how could he not make sure his certification was up to date. I told him that I am now very uncomfortable with the situation and he went into a long diatribe about his knowledge not needing certification. I sent him two emails to this effect. I relied on that certification as the primary reason to choose him and not another firm. I received a response from the ISA just last week and it states that this arborist is again NOT CERTIFIED. You would not know this by his advertisement.His comments about other arborists not being certified is completely immaterial. I didn't hire them, I hired his firm to do the work. It's because he was certified that I hired him.4. Continuing treating the trees. Much of his response is about my lack of not continuing to treat the trees. He obviously doesn't know that and his statement again is untrue. After his third and final treatment I continued spraying the Leylands using the exact fungicide that he used which is [redacted] I have receipts of purchases I made. I did not use the simple pump up sprayers he used. I purchased a large Solo backpack shoulder sprayer capable of reaching 25 ft. and used a ladder to make certain I could access the full interior of the tree. I purchased this solely to treat these trees and have the receipt.5. Timing of applications. He originally stated that he would spray at intervals of 5-7 days. He never told me that it is beneficial to wait up to 2-4 weeks until after the second application. Below I give evidence that 2-4 weeks is not recommended by the experts. It was only by me calling him to remind him to spray that he ever came out at all. Why should the customer be put in this position? As respects the timing of applications here's what the experts say.NC State University Cooperative Extension in the above referenced article states to apply the fungicide 14 days after the initial application. The company that makes the spray, [redacted] states a 14-to 21 days interval. Why did he first say 5-7 days and then say weeks between applications. It's either that he did know the product well enough or simply to make excuses why he waited so long between sprayings. Since I'm stating fact, he did say at one time that the wet weather held him up and he wouldn't have been able to spray that day anyway. His response also said he came back after 10 days and that the application was holding. The product literature plainly states that once the fungicide dries it will not wash off. He also did not come back after 10 days from the initial application. Aside from the initial visit where he had at least 2 assistants, the arborist always came alone. I should have been suspicious then and questioned how he could cover so many trees in less than an hour with a small pump up sprayer. Regardless, his applications fell well outside the recommended intervals suggested by the experts.6. Credibility. My neighbor relayed an encounter he had with this" arborist". He relayed that during one of the applications he approached this "arborist" and asked him what might be happening to his yellowing cherry tree in his front yard. The arborist told him that he would have to charge him for any type of information like that. Isn't this the type of information that is given out routinely by landscapers or contractors and the risk of any occupation that offers free consultations?. It's the solution that we pay for.7. As respects his comment about extra work "all for free" is just so misleading and untrue. There was never any extra work done. On his way out on the second application I was with him standing in a tree bed and he noticed some mushrooms and asked if he could spray them. This only happened after I brought up his lack of certification which explains the motive. He makes out that he did this large amount of pro bono work. There NEVER was any!!In summary, this firm or arborist 1)purposely misled me and did not do the appropriate treatments as he promised and suggested by the experts, 2)was ill equipped to do the job but pretended to and 3) he did not have the certification as he had advertised and took my money regardless.