We know work was not completed, he asked us to stop (verbally), then sent a formal cease letter. At this point he had only paid $4000 deposit, we have $3200 in materials and labor in the project which is why we offered the $800 balance back. He is bringing up things that were not finished, which we are aware of, and not finished because he asked us to stop.
Revdex.com has spoken to business and the following was relayed: Business would like to resolve the complaint. Scott Baker has stated that he has attempted to contact the customer and has been unsuccessful. He will attempt one more time.
We find Mr. [redacted] offer unreasonable and unsatisfactory. The work his company completed on our home was incomplete and deficient in a variety of ways, and he has consistently ignored or outright refused our requests to discuss the issues we have with the project. Specifically, the work is unacceptable because:1) Reuse of damaged fascia. The insurance detail and his quote advises replacement. The attached image shows the reused fascia. Attached: reused-damaged-fascia.png2) Reuse of damaged flashing. I watched as one of the workmen removed damaged flashing from the debris bin, cut and manipulated it to shape, and installed it on the porch roof. The flashing still had numerous holes from its previous use.3) Failure to replace all damaged fascia/soffit. As shown in the attached images, the length of fascia from the back door porch to the corner of the house was not replaced. Also, it and its accompanying drip edge were damaged further by the workmen's ladder. Attached: unreplaced-damaged-fascia.png, unreplaced-damaged-fascia-annotated.png.4) Failure to match fascia aesthetics to existing elements. The insurance detail specifies fascia with custom bends, as is used on the rest of the house. Mr. [redacted] workmen attached new fascia as butt-ended, without bends.5) Failure to replace the rear stair base, risers, and railing. Only the stair treads were replaced. The stair base and railing all used the old, damaged material. The railing was partially dismantled, shaved, and reassembled, leaving gaps in several joins, a screw poking out of the bottom of the rail, and various nail ends and heads sticking out. Attached: stairs-1.png, stairs-2.png, stairs-3.png, stairs-4.png, stairs-5.png.6) Failure to shim/raise the rear porch. Mr. [redacted] claims the porch was raised, however, we do not see any evidence to indicate this work was completed. Significant gaps remain between the tops of the supporting beams and the roof. We have asked Mr. [redacted] for additional evidence - a request he ignored. Attached: support-beam-1.png, support-beam-2.png.7) Failure to replace the upper roof drip edge.8) Failure to replace the upper roof window.9) Failure to replace the stand-pipe boot.10) Failure to strip and paint the rear porch wall cedar shingles and stairs.11) The rear porch roof collects water. The attached images demonstrate water not being shed by the roof, and show the depression in the roof where the water is collecting. Attached: roof-collecting-water-1.png, roof-collecting-water-2.png, roof-collecting-water-3.png.12) Failure to provide a detailed itemization of labor costs and materials used. We have consistently requested this itemization since our initial talks with Mr. [redacted]. Until he abandoned the project, he had consistently agreed to provide it. Now, he refuses, arguing that the "Contract did not state that would be done." This itemization is required by law (NYS General Business Law, Article 36-A, Section 771 1(c)), and needed to provide proof of work completed to our insurance company.13) Failure to inform us of escrow arrangements made for the project's initial deposit. Mr. [redacted] has refused to provide this information, stating "that is not a common business practice, nor was I ever asked this previously by the [redacted]." This is required by law (NYS General Business Law, Article 36-A, Section 771 1(e)).14) Failure to provide licensing and insurance/bond/surety information. Mr. [redacted] has not supplied us with this information despite our numerous requests for it.15) Procurement of an incomplete and misleading building permit. The permit application submitted by Mr. [redacted] did not detail the full scope of work as agreed. This is discussed further below.16) Failure to resolve building permit in a timely manner. Per his estimate, Mr. [redacted] had agreed to handle the requirements of permitting. While he did secure the building permit, albeit with a less-than-satisfactory and possibly fraudulent application, Mr. [redacted] did not work towards completing the required inspection, or closing the permit. Both of those actions were initiated by us after two weeks of trying to engage Mr. [redacted].This is simply a compilation of the issues we have found so far. There are other concerns, such as the state of repair of the joists, the remaining flashing, and the installation of a new ice/water barrier. None of these items, or other concerns, can be adequately inspected without additional assistance from a contractor.Regarding Mr. [redacted] initial response to this complaint:1) Mr. [redacted] states, "The customer requested we stop work, therefore the window was not installed or the painting completed." He is referring to an email sent on August 4, attached to this response. As shown there, we requested he not schedule work until we had met with him, and asked him to schedule that meeting. This email was sent after two days of attempting to meet with him about our concerns. On August 2, he verbally agreed with [redacted] to come by in the evening, but he never showed up. We did not hear from him at all on August 3, despite our attempts to reach him. On August 4, we sent the email to which he referred. Additionally, when I spoke with Mr. [redacted] on the evening of August 1, he had commented to me that the upper window "would take another couple weeks". However, he had never even measured the window. Given these circumstances, I suspect Mr. [redacted], at that time, did not intend to effect this repair.2) Mr. [redacted] states, "The building inspector verified the rear porch work and cedar shake replacement are up to city code." While this is technically true, it fails to mention several relevant facts: a) The building inspector was prevented from inspecting any other work because it did not appear on the permit. As a result, the building inspector only reviewed the installation of shingles on the rear porch roof. b) The inspection was by our request because, in the words of the inspector's office, they had heard nothing from him since the permit was issued. The inspection was on August 15, a full two weeks after his company stopped work. c) Mr. [redacted] work was found to be deficient on the rear porch roof, and he was compelled to send a workman out to address those deficiencies before code compliance would release the permit.3) Mr. [redacted] states, "The other work doesn't require a permit and thus isn't listed on the certificate of completion..." This is patently false. Per the City of Schenectady's list of "Ordinary Repairs Which Do Not Require a Permit", repairing stairs requires a permit if anything more than 50% of treads are repaired. Mr. [redacted] estimate lists "Repair rear stairs and rails", and he replaced 100% of the stair treads. The joists Mr. [redacted] replaced for the rear porch roof also required permitting. Furthermore, for commercial contractors, a "Certificate of Ordinary Repair" is not an option - all work must be permitted. Finally, due to Mr. [redacted] failure to list all work on the permit, deficient work was not inspected. For example, the stairs would not pass inspection in their current state, but the inspection team could not address this deficiency because the stairs were not listed in the permit's scope of work. Attached: City-of-Schenectady_Certificate-of-Ordinary-Repairs.pdf.We have tried to discuss all of the above issues with Mr. [redacted] many times, beginning on August 2 and continuing through August 15. He initially ignored all our requests, finally responding to us on August 9 to simply offer an $800 refund of our deposit. When we refused, his "negotiation" switched to offensive bullying, including maligning our characters with allegations of insurance fraud and dishonesty, and threats to involve his lawyer. All the while, he continued to refuse any real discussion of the issues at hand. After trying for two weeks to engage Mr. [redacted], we finally sent a notice of termination, which included a partial list of complaints, and contacted the City of Schenectady to attempt to close the permit. Attached: correspondence-1.txt, correspondence-2.txt, correspondence-3.txt, correspondence-4.txt, correspondence-5.txt, correspondence-6.txt, notice-of-termination.txt.Since our termination of Mr. [redacted] project, we have contacted six other contractors to assess the work already completed and the work still required. All six contractors have stated that the work they observed was unsatisfactory and would not meet their standards. While most of the estimates are still pending, one contractor did submit to us a statement of his findings, which is attached to this response. Attached: [redacted]_Previous-Work-Evaluation.pdf.Mr. [redacted] has not only failed to effect the repairs he quoted to an acceptable standard, he has consistently resisted engaging in any discussion about the state of his work. Combined with the aggressively disingenuous way Mr. [redacted] has approached these issues since we began a more formal complaint process, we are absolutely set against any further work being done by him or his company. We simply cannot trust that he will do what he says, with a reasonable quality.Given that the current state of work completed by Mr. [redacted] is wholly unacceptable, and the fact that we will have to hire another contractor to both redo Mr. [redacted] work and complete the remainder of the project, we are requesting that our deposit of $4000 be returned to us.
We know work was not completed, he asked us to stop (verbally), then sent a formal cease letter. At this point he had only paid $4000 deposit, we have $3200 in materials and labor in the project which is why we offered the $800 balance back. He is bringing up things that were not finished, which we are aware of, and not finished because he asked us to stop.
Revdex.com has spoken to business and the following was relayed: Business would like to resolve the complaint. Scott Baker has stated that he has attempted to contact the customer and has been unsuccessful. He will attempt one more time.
We find Mr. [redacted] offer unreasonable and unsatisfactory. The work his company completed on our home was incomplete and deficient in a variety of ways, and he has consistently ignored or outright refused our requests to discuss the issues we have with the project. Specifically, the work is unacceptable because:1) Reuse of damaged fascia. The insurance detail and his quote advises replacement. The attached image shows the reused fascia. Attached: reused-damaged-fascia.png2) Reuse of damaged flashing. I watched as one of the workmen removed damaged flashing from the debris bin, cut and manipulated it to shape, and installed it on the porch roof. The flashing still had numerous holes from its previous use.3) Failure to replace all damaged fascia/soffit. As shown in the attached images, the length of fascia from the back door porch to the corner of the house was not replaced. Also, it and its accompanying drip edge were damaged further by the workmen's ladder. Attached: unreplaced-damaged-fascia.png, unreplaced-damaged-fascia-annotated.png.4) Failure to match fascia aesthetics to existing elements. The insurance detail specifies fascia with custom bends, as is used on the rest of the house. Mr. [redacted] workmen attached new fascia as butt-ended, without bends.5) Failure to replace the rear stair base, risers, and railing. Only the stair treads were replaced. The stair base and railing all used the old, damaged material. The railing was partially dismantled, shaved, and reassembled, leaving gaps in several joins, a screw poking out of the bottom of the rail, and various nail ends and heads sticking out. Attached: stairs-1.png, stairs-2.png, stairs-3.png, stairs-4.png, stairs-5.png.6) Failure to shim/raise the rear porch. Mr. [redacted] claims the porch was raised, however, we do not see any evidence to indicate this work was completed. Significant gaps remain between the tops of the supporting beams and the roof. We have asked Mr. [redacted] for additional evidence - a request he ignored. Attached: support-beam-1.png, support-beam-2.png.7) Failure to replace the upper roof drip edge.8) Failure to replace the upper roof window.9) Failure to replace the stand-pipe boot.10) Failure to strip and paint the rear porch wall cedar shingles and stairs.11) The rear porch roof collects water. The attached images demonstrate water not being shed by the roof, and show the depression in the roof where the water is collecting. Attached: roof-collecting-water-1.png, roof-collecting-water-2.png, roof-collecting-water-3.png.12) Failure to provide a detailed itemization of labor costs and materials used. We have consistently requested this itemization since our initial talks with Mr. [redacted]. Until he abandoned the project, he had consistently agreed to provide it. Now, he refuses, arguing that the "Contract did not state that would be done." This itemization is required by law (NYS General Business Law, Article 36-A, Section 771 1(c)), and needed to provide proof of work completed to our insurance company.13) Failure to inform us of escrow arrangements made for the project's initial deposit. Mr. [redacted] has refused to provide this information, stating "that is not a common business practice, nor was I ever asked this previously by the [redacted]." This is required by law (NYS General Business Law, Article 36-A, Section 771 1(e)).14) Failure to provide licensing and insurance/bond/surety information. Mr. [redacted] has not supplied us with this information despite our numerous requests for it.15) Procurement of an incomplete and misleading building permit. The permit application submitted by Mr. [redacted] did not detail the full scope of work as agreed. This is discussed further below.16) Failure to resolve building permit in a timely manner. Per his estimate, Mr. [redacted] had agreed to handle the requirements of permitting. While he did secure the building permit, albeit with a less-than-satisfactory and possibly fraudulent application, Mr. [redacted] did not work towards completing the required inspection, or closing the permit. Both of those actions were initiated by us after two weeks of trying to engage Mr. [redacted].This is simply a compilation of the issues we have found so far. There are other concerns, such as the state of repair of the joists, the remaining flashing, and the installation of a new ice/water barrier. None of these items, or other concerns, can be adequately inspected without additional assistance from a contractor.Regarding Mr. [redacted] initial response to this complaint:1) Mr. [redacted] states, "The customer requested we stop work, therefore the window was not installed or the painting completed." He is referring to an email sent on August 4, attached to this response. As shown there, we requested he not schedule work until we had met with him, and asked him to schedule that meeting. This email was sent after two days of attempting to meet with him about our concerns. On August 2, he verbally agreed with [redacted] to come by in the evening, but he never showed up. We did not hear from him at all on August 3, despite our attempts to reach him. On August 4, we sent the email to which he referred. Additionally, when I spoke with Mr. [redacted] on the evening of August 1, he had commented to me that the upper window "would take another couple weeks". However, he had never even measured the window. Given these circumstances, I suspect Mr. [redacted], at that time, did not intend to effect this repair.2) Mr. [redacted] states, "The building inspector verified the rear porch work and cedar shake replacement are up to city code." While this is technically true, it fails to mention several relevant facts: a) The building inspector was prevented from inspecting any other work because it did not appear on the permit. As a result, the building inspector only reviewed the installation of shingles on the rear porch roof. b) The inspection was by our request because, in the words of the inspector's office, they had heard nothing from him since the permit was issued. The inspection was on August 15, a full two weeks after his company stopped work. c) Mr. [redacted] work was found to be deficient on the rear porch roof, and he was compelled to send a workman out to address those deficiencies before code compliance would release the permit.3) Mr. [redacted] states, "The other work doesn't require a permit and thus isn't listed on the certificate of completion..." This is patently false. Per the City of Schenectady's list of "Ordinary Repairs Which Do Not Require a Permit", repairing stairs requires a permit if anything more than 50% of treads are repaired. Mr. [redacted] estimate lists "Repair rear stairs and rails", and he replaced 100% of the stair treads. The joists Mr. [redacted] replaced for the rear porch roof also required permitting. Furthermore, for commercial contractors, a "Certificate of Ordinary Repair" is not an option - all work must be permitted. Finally, due to Mr. [redacted] failure to list all work on the permit, deficient work was not inspected. For example, the stairs would not pass inspection in their current state, but the inspection team could not address this deficiency because the stairs were not listed in the permit's scope of work. Attached: City-of-Schenectady_Certificate-of-Ordinary-Repairs.pdf.We have tried to discuss all of the above issues with Mr. [redacted] many times, beginning on August 2 and continuing through August 15. He initially ignored all our requests, finally responding to us on August 9 to simply offer an $800 refund of our deposit. When we refused, his "negotiation" switched to offensive bullying, including maligning our characters with allegations of insurance fraud and dishonesty, and threats to involve his lawyer. All the while, he continued to refuse any real discussion of the issues at hand. After trying for two weeks to engage Mr. [redacted], we finally sent a notice of termination, which included a partial list of complaints, and contacted the City of Schenectady to attempt to close the permit. Attached: correspondence-1.txt, correspondence-2.txt, correspondence-3.txt, correspondence-4.txt, correspondence-5.txt, correspondence-6.txt, notice-of-termination.txt.Since our termination of Mr. [redacted] project, we have contacted six other contractors to assess the work already completed and the work still required. All six contractors have stated that the work they observed was unsatisfactory and would not meet their standards. While most of the estimates are still pending, one contractor did submit to us a statement of his findings, which is attached to this response. Attached: [redacted]_Previous-Work-Evaluation.pdf.Mr. [redacted] has not only failed to effect the repairs he quoted to an acceptable standard, he has consistently resisted engaging in any discussion about the state of his work. Combined with the aggressively disingenuous way Mr. [redacted] has approached these issues since we began a more formal complaint process, we are absolutely set against any further work being done by him or his company. We simply cannot trust that he will do what he says, with a reasonable quality.Given that the current state of work completed by Mr. [redacted] is wholly unacceptable, and the fact that we will have to hire another contractor to both redo Mr. [redacted] work and complete the remainder of the project, we are requesting that our deposit of $4000 be returned to us.