M & H Wood Specialties Ltd

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/03/23) */
Early October, 2015 an agreement was made between M & H Wood Specialties Ltd. and [redacted] and [redacted]. The agreement was for the replacement of stairs to be prestained with customer supplied stain. Client was very specific about replacing...

the rail posts, but in the interest of cost saving, they did not want a replacement of the railing verbally indicating the railing was sound and a replacement was not required. Please note, a completion date was not confirmed when the agreement was struck.
Due to conflicting project deadlines, M & H completed the [redacted] project approximately one month after the suggested completion time frame. M & H replaced the log stairs and bottom railing posts complying with standard practice and applicable building codes. Railing posts were installed and trimmed on site at the direction of Mrs. [redacted]. In spite of the fact that the replaced stairs were a visual replica of the original stairs, [redacted] and [redacted] felt they were not close enough in appearance. M & H replaced the stairs with another set at no additional cost. While the onsite replacement was being conducted, M & H employees noticed significant decay in the railing so I authorized the replacement of the railing at M & H's expense with the staining to be done by the client. This, in the interests of responsible trades practice and positive client relations.
Once the job was completed and there had been no further concerns, brought to our attention, we sent out the final invoice. Several calls were made to collect on the outstanding balance before Mrs. [redacted] informed M & H that the stain was starting to peel off the stairs. M & H sent out an employee to provide touch up to the stairs. Please note the stain was

provided by [redacted] and [redacted] and M & H provided the touch up with the same stain that was provided by the client at company expense.
Several more requests were made for final payment after the touch up was completed. M &. H received a cheque along with a letter for some of the outstanding balance in February 2016, but there remains a balance of $500.00 outstanding. The letter attached was a refusal to pay the outstanding balance due to unsatisfactory work done by M & H.
M & H successfully fulfilled their Obligation and went above and beyond when the client was not happy. M H replaced the rotted railing and retouched the stairs with stain at no cost to the client. All stain used was customer supplied and was stored inside the 'company shop for the interim of the project to avoid damage to the stain due to exposure to the elements. Once the letter was received and read, the only correctible action in the correspondence was staining the free railing so M & H dispatched staff to remove the railing and bring it back to the shop for staining. This option would allow the seasonal work to be completed regardless of weather conditions. Up to this point, all government laws allowing contractors access to the site to correct issues had been adhered to so there was no concern that M & H would not be allowed access to the site. Unfortunately, Mrs. [redacted] would not allow M & H employees on the property so no corrections could be made.
As of March 11, 2016, the balance of $500.00 is still outstanding. Access to the site has been refused thus hindering any perceived action to rectify the concerns by the client. The clients have suffered no damage or costs and have in fact gained materially in the railing upgrade they were not charged for. Final correspondence with the [redacted]'s was via email with a suggestion of coming to the office with their final payment and picking up the remainder
of the surplus stain they provided.