Majestic Builders Inc

Review: On 7/26/2013, I entered a contract agreement with [redacted], DBA Majestic Builders, for a landscape project totaling $29,118.00. [redacted] was selected based upon my review of an advertisement he placed in the July 2013 issue of House2Home Showcase magazine. In that advertisement [redacted] indicated $2000 off "On new contracted projects of $15,000 or more." When I requested he apply the $2000 toward the cost of my contracted landscape project, he refused stating that ad should not have been in the magazine. I believe this to be a deceptive and dishonest business practice.

On 7/26/13, I entered into a written contract with [redacted], DBA Majestic Builders, for a landscape project consisting of several segments costing $29,118.00. My complaint involves the segment of the contract detailing services to include: "Stain front entry concrete walkway 120 sq. ft.-$540", and "Prep and staining all concrete in rear yard 1,675 sq. ft.- $5,862.50. On 10/2/13, [redacted], through his sub-contractor, had a liquid material applied to the concrete surfaces. Subsequent to the written articulated 48 hour drying process, I inspected the concrete surface on 10/4/13, and the actual liquid product applied. Reading the label on the container of the product applied, I learned that contrary to work specified in the contract as "staining the concrete", a "solid color Color Texture Seal waterproofing resin (paint)" was applied. This fact was verified by my reading the product label on the one gallon can of extra paint left by the sub-contractor, and a telephonic conversation I had with him immediately after reading the label. Moreover, I was advised by him that he personally had made [redacted] aware of the product being a Color Seal paint product used on pool decks and patios, and not a stain product when he bid the work cost. He advised also that the actual concrete staining process is much more laborious in work hours spent to apply it, and consequently the job cost is much higher than what was applied. I believe the specific contract terms were not met by [redacted] by not applying the stain as prescribed, and using the lesser cost Color Seal paint product. I believe this action authorized by [redacted] constitutes possible fraud and is a clear violation of the terms as agreed upon in our contract. I clearly was charged for a more expensive work product that in fact was not delivered

Product_Or_Service: Landscape project

Order_Number: N/A

Account_Number: N/A

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Refund

I believe a fair and reasonable resolution to my complaint would be that the $2000 discount be retroactively applied to the total balance outstanding on our contract.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response

I am responding to your email request.

I am including the signed contract and proposal, settlement agreement dated 11/6/13, a chain of emails, a sequence of events and a response from me on the [redacted] allegations.

My response is as follows:

The contract we entered into on 7/26/13 referred to prep and stain all concrete surfaces front and back.

At that time we had spent quite a bit of time reviewing topical stain options. The clients existing concrete had been stained with an alternative semi transparent product previously and he had made it clear that the current condition was unacceptable thus motivating him to contract with me to "recondition" his front and back concrete......amongst other scopes of work.

The term "stain" is a generic term accepted in the industry. At the time of contract signing we were still considering the specific look the client was desiring.

My client met with my concrete staining sub [redacted] at [redacted] We presented several options and reviewed a color chart.

Consequently the client opted for a solid stain "Sand" by Americrete. I documented the product and color in email and with the clients approval we ordered it. A few days after ordering the client requested we change the color to "Tan". We changed the color order and documented the clients change in email.

Once the product was installed the client felt the color was too light. We (client, myself and [redacted] of [redacted] met on site and reviewed options. The Client decided to go with the same product but the darker "Mocha" color.

I had said I would change out the color he originally selected at "my cost"...... after some resistance from Mr. [redacted] he agreed (all in email chain)

We promptly ordered the Mocha product and reapplied new color stain. Upon completion the client indicted to my sub [redacted] he liked the darker color.

During this entire time frame from initial meeting to the completion of the second color the client never once questioned the material or process.

He continued to meet the pmnt schedule per contract and had provided me a complete accounting of pmnts made and his intention to pay the final pmnt once he could fully inspect the final product (he wanted 48hrs from the time of completion of second color stain application to make pmnt.....which I agreed to. On Friday afternoon (10/4) which was the 3rd day from installation he called me and stated that he felt I had not installed the correct product per contract and wanted a 1,500.00 discount.......I felt he had been deceptive in his intentions and simply was looking for me to discount the job in the eleventh hour. I countered in writing that I disagreed with his representations of what transpired but agreed t o a 750.00 credit as an act of good faith.

With no further correspondence he notified me on Monday 10/7/13 that he had filed a complaint with the CSLB.

I was contacted by his attorney approx. two weeks later and we began attempts at resolving the dispute.

During this dialogue with his attny it became apparent that there was in fact a discrepency in sq. ft. stained(my sq.ft. estimate in proposal and contract was higher than my sub contractors bill to me)

I acknowledged this and agreed to credit the client the difference.

A final settlement agreement was signed by the cleint and myself on 11/6/13 with one of the conditions being he dropp the complaint with the CSLB and Revdex.com.

In closing Majestic Builders has been in business for over 30 yers with flawless record in the industry with both my clients and business partners.

I have never ever had an adverse complaint either with the CSLB or Revdex.com before this event!!

Final Consumer Response

I am not in agreement with Mr. [redacted]'s version of the events and they are not relevant. Due to his unwillingness to negotiate reasonably, I directed my attorney to present him with a formal written settlement in lieu of my pursuing my formal complaints with the Revdex.com and Contractors State License Board. We both agreed to the settlement terms which negated his allegation that $3458 was remaining on the contract and as a result of his inaccurate concrete measurements he refunded me $874.64. Accordingly, my business transaction with him is terminated and my formal complaint concerns are now resolved.

Review: In July 2013, I entered into a written contract with [redacted], DBA Majestic Builders to install travertine tile on the outdoor surfaces of my front courtyard and rear yard lower terrace patio. The tile installation was completed in August 2013, and subsequent to the work I was provided a 1 year written warranty on the material and workmanship relative to the tile installation. In January 2014, I observed the surface of the travertine tiles in both areas start to lose their natural brown/tan coloring with the surfaces turning hazy white. Currently, all of the exposed tiles are covered with a stark white hazy/cloudy permanent film showing distinct streak marks caused by the sponges used by the workers during application of the tile sealer. On 3/6/14, as provided in the warranty, I provided notice to [redacted] of the now unsightly appearance of the tile and requested it be repaired to an acceptable condition. On 3/11/14, [redacted] arrived at my residence with his tile subcontractor, [redacted], to inspect the condition of the tile. On 3/27/14, I received an email from [redacted] advising that [redacted] indicated to him that the degraded hazy, sponge streaked appearance of the tile is normal and a result of weather and water exposure. I interpreted this message as a refusal by him to repair the tile. I believe this decision is unacceptable, inconsistent with his assurance at contract presentation to provide quality work, and contrary to the agreed upon terms in his written contract and warranty. Prior to [redacted]'s visit and as recent as 4/3/14, I have had the tile inspected by 2 independent tile contractors. Both have indicated to me the degraded tile appearance is not normal or visually acceptable and that the condition appears to be the result of improper application of the sealer material. I was advised by one contractor that due to the condition, the tile would have to be honed to remove the white film and a quality tile sealer reapplied.Desired Settlement: I believe [redacted] should be responsible to have the tile honed and resealed at his cost, or reimburse me the cost for having this work performed independent of him.

Business

Response:

This is in response to Mr. [redacted] complaint.

I received written notice on 3/6/14 that Mr. [redacted] observed a white film buildup on the travertine tile we installed in both front and rear patios.

On 3/11 I met on site with my installer and we both observed a very subtle film on areas of the travertine that were exposed to direct weather. (areas of travertine that were not directly exposed to weather did not have this film.........which Mr. [redacted] acknowleged)

It was determined that this was simply hard water build up on the surface and was not inherent with the sealer itself.

I shared in writing our observations with Mr. [redacted] and he responded back that he did not agree. He indicated he had another tile contractor out and that Mr. [redacted] was told that the other tile contractor felt it needed to be resealed and that he could perform that service.

I indicated if I could see a written summary from a professional stone tile installer I would be receptive to resealing at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. One day later he filed this compaint without any further communication.

There were two other concurrent "warranty issues" that were addressed timely by Majestic Builders and I have asked Mr. [redacted] in writing to acknowlege that these have been satisfied. To date, I have received no further communication from Mr. [redacted].

I want to emphasize that Majestic Builders has been in business for 30 years and has NEVER had another complaint filed with the Revdex.com or the CSLB . Our business philosophy and reputation is rock solid and one built on providing high quality products and standing behind our work.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: First, the hazy film coating, which includes distinct and permanent sponge streaks resulting from the application of the sealant product is very significant in appearance despite Mr. [redacted]'s assertion. Visible white sponge streaks should not be stained into the tile surface. The tile was intended to be installed outside and again, contrary to Mr. [redacted]'s statement, no hard water has ever been applied to the tile surface. The tile appearance significantly deteriorated only after rainfall had occurred on it during the few months of a light rain winter season, and is in stark contrast to the adjacent tile surface that is covered by the roof overhang from our residence. As with my previous complaint to the Revdex.com relative to my concerns about Mr. [redacted]'s work performance, instead of taking accountability, he instead becomes defensive, attempts to deflect or negate any issues and puts the responsibility back on the consumer to accept or resolve the problem. The unsatisfactory and unsightly appearance of the tile surface is not slight, nor acceptable considering the many thousands of dollars we paid Mr. [redacted] in good faith to provide a quality product at our residence. Moreover, as with our previous complaint with the Revdex.com, Mr. [redacted] initially failed to acknowledge the problem and now only after my filing a formal complaint is he responding as if he has performed no wrong doing. Based on my past experience, I find Mr. [redacted] to be untruthful, insincere and uncaring with regard to our legitimate concerns regarding his work performance. I should not have to pay other tile contractors to provide him anything relative to our tile performance. He, the licensed contractor should reasonably attempt to resolve consumer concerns, including consulting other tile professionals if necessary. Based on my experience with Mr. [redacted] and his business demeanor, I don't trust his opinion or have confidence in his skills. I want him to reimburse me for the money I now have to expend to to pay another reputable licensed tile contractor to restore my tile appearance to a satisfactory appearance rather than rely on his sub-contractor who he states he trusts and asserts has done nothing wrong installing my travertine tile.

Business

Response:

This will be my second Revdex.com response to Mr. [redacted] complaint. The first response was dated 4/17.

My tile subcontractor and myself met on site on 3/11/14. We attempted to get the manufacturers rep to site for a second opinion.........when the representative was nonresponsive I chose to put in writing my subcontractors opinion that the haze in sun exposed areas of the travertine patio (as opposed to covered areas) were the result of natural water deposits.

In the follow up email from client to myself he stated he had two other contractors look at the tile and they both stated that was not the case. I offered to reseal all travertine at no cost if he would be receptive to sharing with me their written summary.

The following day he filed a complaint with the Revdex.com.

On 4/14/14 I sent another email following up on two other warranty issues that were previously addressed asking for him to put in writing that he was satisfied with those efforts and again offering to reseal all my travertine at no cost to him. I receieved no response from him.

On 4/21/14 I drafted a follow up letter and sent it to him certified mail.

I have yet to hear from Mr [redacted] since my initial offer on or about the beginning of April.

In all I have sent 3 seperate emails offering to address the issue and requesting a response.

I am attaching the last two documents requesting a response from Mr. [redacted].

Sincerely

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: As stated in my previous correspondence, based on my experience with Mr. [redacted], including his responses to my previous complaints relative to other work performed on my property I believe him to be incredibly disingenuous relative to my concerns and that he is now again merely seeking to use this formal complaint process to gain favor with the Revdex.com. Moreover, I will not respond to his demands in any format that I provide written correspondence to him on other work performance issues on my property not contained in this complaint and which are immaterial. Again, I reject his ridiculous assertion that I should provide him with a written evaluation from other contractors relative to obvious visual defects in the tile appearance. No reputable tile contractor that I have contacted is willing to provide this information free of charge, nor are they willing to be a party in this complaint and I will not request that they do so. As a licensed contractor it is my belief that this obligation should rest solely with Mr. [redacted] since I have paid him approximately $10,000.00 in good faith for this work and the defect is clearly covered in his written warranty.