Jim G Sabbatini CPA

Oakland and its representatives are continuing to work with the flooring contractor to make sure the issue is resolved

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me

The customer closed on the home on 8/14/Two walkthroughs were conducted with the customer in August and September during which time some items were noted, none was relative to the laminate floorAll items were promptly and properly servicedThe customer called Oakland’s construction manager on
his cell phone in January and stated she had a flooring issueThe customer also texted him with a short list of other items Oakland promptly inspected the floor and items and called the flooring contractor (HOM Flooring) and other relevant contractors HOM Flooring inspected the floor in January A manufacture defect report was made by HOM FlooringDuring January, February and March the customer and Oakland’s construction manager exchanged several textsOakland promptly responded to all of the customer’s textsThe customer never emailed OaklandOakland inspected the home again in FebruaryOn March 23, the manufacturer’s representative inspected the floor and concluded it was not a defect with the manufacture’s productOn June 10, the flooring contractor performed some repairsHOM Flooring had all of Oakland’s construction plans and selected this laminate flooring product for Oakland’s homesHOM Flooring was also the installer of the product. The home was built per code including the floor deflection criteriaThe statements the customer says HOM Flooring made were unfortunately made by an employee of HOM that never had any contact with Oakland and never attempted to have any contact with OaklandHis statements were completely and he had no information to make those statementsHe was put in the position to handle the flooring claim on May 19, Oakland was not notified of his position until June 15, Prior to that date, Oakland had put in multiple calls to a different HOM employee that Oakland was told was handling the service requestOakland was never contacted or informed by HOM or the customer that HOM was requiring the customer to pay for an upgraded floorThe customer should not have to pay for an upgraded product as a resolution to this issue, and we are very sorry this has not been resolved promptly or properlyOakland is continuing to work with the flooring contractor to resolve the issue and will make sure it is properly repaired or replaced with a comparable productOakland is not aware of any other issues the customer has, and we request that she email her list of issues to the Oakland service email we will then inspect and properly respond to the issues

Oakland and its representatives are continuing to work with the flooring contractor to make sure the issue is resolved.