Marks Pacific NW Enterprises Inc

TO: Revdex.comRef: ID *** customer complaint from *** ***In response to this customers complaint the following are the issues that I sent in an e-mail to them showing items that were left to be done on the contract and were discussed with a walk through with
*** *** on several occasions and agreed upon.1) Many of the issues Mr*** has mentioned include the fact that much of the work to be done should be maintenance work to the existing landscape project, which is his responsibility. Such as the weed barrier. Weed barrier can only do so much, it is not a cure all and any weeds, rock or bark that gets on top of the weed barrier will look untidy unless maintained. 2) We had changed and agreed on the change from block to curbing. We acknowledged that there were two cracks in the bottom, small piece of the curing that needed to be repaired and that we had been in contact with the curbing contractor about this issueWe also explained that this would be done at that company’s time restraints.3) The pressure washing was done at the beginning of the project. The sealing of the drive way, walk way and patio are not in the bid and have never been in the scope of the work our company accomplishes.4) We not only beauty barked their entire yard not just once but twice. We barked it last winter and re-barked it this spring. We have gone out of our way to make their yard nice. Including meeting them to pick out plants to buy, several times on the weekends. We also cleaned up the flower beds when we first started this project and cleaned them again twice this last spring, hand weeding, raking etc. This was not a part of our job as it should have been a maintenance issue and their responsibility but we were trying to do a exemplary job.5) We explained why we added soaker lines to the entire back of the slope and that if we put sprinkler heads on the upper part of the slope it could have caused a flooding affect pushing bark and soil off the slope, just as it had done during the winter with the rain, I did not want to add to this problem as it is better to have a soaker hose for when the ground cover gets planted, they are more effective on watering. We had also consulted experts in this area and were advised that this was the best way to go.6) We did agree that two small walls by the edge of the drive and corner of the house needed to be finished. The following are the items that we said we would complete: a. Have the small portion of curbing fixed b. Fix the small wall near the corner of the house c. Re-rake flower bedsd. Add heads for the area near the front door and change the back of house sprinkler (this plan was changed by *** from pots to plantings)e. Go through the entire sprinkler system reviewing everything is getting adequate water.f. We said we would build a new manifold for the sprinkler system which is under the house VS trying to revise their old one which failed.g. Bark the south side of the upper slope in and around ivy area.7) As to replanting bushes we explained that there is always the possibility that a plant that has been moved might not be able to handle the shock and not survive. 8) As the project went along we communicated mainly with *** as her husband travels quite a bit and we were assured that she was happy with what we had accomplished. There was extra work such as planting and rocks that were added to the contract.9) We tried to set a date when we could come and finish the project but Mr*** had indicated to us that he did not want us to finish.10) The project took longer than we expected. We cannot control inclement weather and we tried to be considerate of the times when Mrs*** had back surgery and when she was busy with the end of school projects which prohibited us from doing any workWe have tried very hard to communicate and resolve these issues but were unable to satisfy Mr***’s demands. 11) As to Mr***’s comment about another company giving him a bid of $17,based on what he determined was left to be done. He has included items to be done that were never in the contract and beyond the scope of what our company does. We have listed above the unfinished work and we had agreed to do the work and tried to make an appointment to come and finish it. We consider the contract was 98% finishedThere was a balance of monies still due and we feel that this would be enough to cover what we have listed as remaining work to be done. It is not even reasonable to think that this company would pay back $17,of an estimate made by another company when in fact the contract had been 98% finished12) We are very sorry that we were unable to meet Mr***’s demands but we were working based on the signed contract and some changes that Mrs*** requested and changes that we had discussed with her as we went along. We attempted to finish the job but Mr*** was not receptive to that and asked us not to return thereby voiding our contract with him

Ref: ID ***In response of the ***’s rejection on October 25, I would like address the following:The ***’s have continued to state MPNW verbally agreed to do the concrete sealingAgain, this is not in the scope of work that MPNW doesMPNW has never in its years of work ever sealed a driveway, walk way or patiosTherefore, this argument is moot
The ***’s state that the problems with the sprinkler system are far greater than we acknowledged, and that Pro Grass can verify thisMPNW used schedule piping, swing joints, rain bird heads, rain bird valves, automatic drains, as well as added a new controllerWe acknowledge that the manifold need to be replaced due to the failure of revamping their existing oneWe also acknowledge that there would need to be sprinkler head adjustments for the plant placement once Mrs*** picked out her plants. Unless Pro Grass and or Redwood Builders removed the sod and dug down to see the system, I am not sure how the “System” has pervasive deficiencies
As to the rock wall and bush transplanting, please again refer to October 14,rebuttal paragraph and paragraph Also after a walkthrough on the wall with Mrs***, which no issues were brought up, we met with ***’s at the nursery to get ground cover for that slopeHowever, we could not find the ground cover she wanted, she did mention in an email that she had a friend that had ground cover for the slopeI have included that email priorThis was to be planted on the slope per ***’s and Mrs***’s change
Per the lack of communications on the specific times that the ***’s added in their September 30, rebuttal I will be sending a copy of the text messages along to show in fact we were communicating.MPNW stands by its October 14,rebuttal as well as this response to their rejectionThank you once again for your time. Mark D

Dear Ms***:
We have reviewed MPNW’s September response to our complaint of September 21,In reply, we offer the following:
MPNW contracted to complete the work noted in our complaint***’s response in part denies the scope of the contract as described in our complaint.See, for example, paragraph of the response (“[Mr***] has included items to be done thatwere never in the contract and beyond the scope of what our company does.”)We have attacheda copy of the original contract here (“MPNW contract.pdf”)(The handwritten notes are ours andare not part of the contract, other than the deposit receipt noted on page 4.) Other than sealing theconcrete areas, which he verbally agreed to do, the contract clearly shows that he contracted todo all of the items mentioned in our complaint
This is not the first time *** has denied having agreed to the terms of the contractForexample, he did this after we emailed him a spreadsheet, on June of this year, detailing thestatus of the contracted items (attached as “Status 6-28-16.docx”)He responded to that messageon June 29, stating in part:
As for your list of items that you stated that we agreed upon and that the contracthas not been completed satisfactory? None of those items are in Our originalcontract, which has been completed with the exceptions of a couple ofrepairsAgain I will state everything in the original contract was completedwith the exceptions of a couple of repairs
*** did not respond at all to the specific items in the spreadsheet until we sent him acopy of the contract, showing that the language used in the spreadsheet was drawn verbatim fromthe contractSee attachment “Emails 6-and 6-29.docx.” As with his statements then, his claimthat our complaint included items that “were never in the contract” is inaccurate
MPNW did not satisfactorily complete the work covered by the contract
***’s response indicates that he believes that the contract is “98% finished.” (Paragraph11.) He also claims that the sprinkler system needs only minor work (paragraphs 6(d)-(f)), andthat the replanted bushes died due to shock (paragraph 7)These claims are incorrect
We have attached a detailed bid and analysis from another company, ProGrass, showinghow much work needs to be done to fix the work that *** did inadequately or simply did notdo(“ProGrass *** Residence.pdf” and “ProGrass *** landscape review.pdf.”) The landscape review explains, among other things, that the transplanted bushes were not replantedproperly (“Soil & Mulch”), that the rock work was never even begun (“Rock Walls/Rockeries”),and that the sprinkler installation is severely deficient (“Irrigation”)
ProGrass quoted over $28,to fix and complete the work contained in the originalMPNW contractThis bid includes only the work falling within the MPNW contract, and evenexcludes the cost of repairing the curbing that crackedThe number we quoted in our complaint,approximately $17,000, came from a bid we got from another contractor, Redwood Builders(attached as “Redwood Builders quote.pdf”)The bid that we cited in the complaint is thus on thelow end of what we expect to have to pay to complete the project that MPNW was supposed todo
Finally, *** has claimed that the excessively long time that the project took was due toinclement weather and accommodations for “when Mrs*** had back surgery and when shewas busy with the end of school projects which prohibited us from doing any work.” (Paragraph10.) This contention is not credible
The contract between us and MPNW was signed, and deposit accepted, on October 10,Mrs*** had back surgery eight months later, on June 7, Her end-of-year schoolprojects (she is a high-school teacher) did not arise until a similar timeThese issues had nothingwhatsoever to do with the long duration of this project
Moreover, there were several periods of weeks at a time where *** did no work on theproperty and did not communicate with us at allHe made no progress and did not communicateanything from December to January 19, January to March 2, March to March 26, or Mayto June This adds up to approximately three full months during the contract period wherehe made no progress and offered no explanations or other communicationFurther, when ***did perform work on the property, he was often there without either of us presentOur in-personavailability thus had little to no effect on his ability to make progress
MPNW contracted for the work detailed in our complaint but did not complete itWehave documented the cost for other contractors to complete the project to a reasonable standard,and have requested the lower amount of the two bids we receivedWe therefore ask that youresolve this complaint in our favor
Sincerely,*** * *** ***
***SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com***

We have reviewed MPNW's response of October 31, 2016. We continue to rely on ourprevious responses to support our case. Otherwise, we have the following responses to MPNW'sOctober 31 statement:
1. As we have detailed before, the sprinkler system has pervasive deficiencies. These arespecifically called out in the ProGrass landscape review that we attached to ourSeptember 30 response. The particular items that MPNW has refused even toacknowledge as problems include the following:a. "Contractor completely ignored standard operating industry standards whenproviding point of connection for newly installed irrigation system." As notedin the landscape review, the system should have been connected to the mainwater meter at the front of the property instead of being connected in the crawlspace under the house.b. MPNW created an unnecessary 1" drill hole through the side of the house,inviting "insects and vermin" into the house.c. The connection that MPNW actually installed to the existing water system"has also caused leaks in the crawl space of the home [thus] bringing inmoisture to the home and compromising the foundation."d. "Wires for the controller were also witnessed coming out of existing vents toreach the irrigation controller."
These issues are specifically called out in the ProGrass landscape review, which is thesource of the quoted passages. Per MPNW's September 23 response, they haverefused to acknowledge that any of these conditions exist or are problems.ProGrass—an independent contractor with no reason to misrepresent the appropriateindustry standards or the results of their inspection—has clearly demonstrated theshortcomings in the installed system. MPNW's refusal to address any of them showstheir inability or unwillingness to bring the system to an appropriate industrystandard.
2. The text messages attached to MPNW's October 31 response do not undermine ourcomplaint about their lack of communication. The only text message falling withinthe time periods where we noted that there was no communication is a single messagefrom February 11, 2016. In that message, we had texted Mark to let him know that wewere pleased with the results of the sod installation. He responded "Thanks I thoughtso too ?." The next message included in MPNW's attachment is dated April 22. ThisFebruary 11 text was a nicety that contained no information about the status of theproject or timeline going forward. Thus, our claim that we received no meaningfulcommunication from MPNW during the time periods specified in our earlier replies isvalid.
Moreover, these text messages show the problems we have had trying tocommunicate with Mark about the progress on the project. After sending Mark a texton May 11, 2016 expressing concerns about the quality of work that had been done sofar, Mark responded with several long, aggressive messages complaining about thetext he received. See "11726048_B_Clarfication_2.pdf" at pages 7-9. In thosemessages, he specifically pointed to his Revdex.com rating as evidence that we were wrongto be questioning the quality of his work. This type of behavior is terrible customerservice, and is one of the many reasons why MPNW's work and Mark's behavior hasfallen below the quality that should be expected of a business with a positive ratingfrom the Revdex.com.
We hope this response proves useful, and that this provides sufficient information for a resolution of this complaint. 
Sincerely, 
[redacted]