MHG Homes, LLC

Please see attached documents regarding this dispute MHG HOMES, LLC, Salinas Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011To: Revdex.com, Jefferson StNE, Ste A, Albuquerque, NM 87109ID No [redacted] Dear Sir or Madam,In way of response to the Customer’s statement, I would like to recount that the Customer waspresented with an bid for the work requested ( a copy of the bid for illustration purposes is attached.)and upon review and acceptance, she signed it and authorized the work to be doneThat bid set forththe size of the unit to be installed as a 100,BTU unit, and it also stated in writing that the Customerwas required to have the gas and plumbing connections to be provided by a licensed plumber of herchoiceIt also addressed the number of ventsThis was the Bid that she accepted.We are providing a copy of her emailed complaint and demand regarding the 100,BTU unit andsome of the other issues she demanded, such as a “commission” regarding our sub-contractor.We are providing a copy of our response where we addressed those demands and agreed to anaccommodation as she requested which reduced the amounts owedThe most recent invoice isattached.I would like to restate, as we did earlier in that response, that we elected to install the larger unitbecause of the advanced age of the house, the cinder block construction, the aged insulation in theceiling and walls, and the single pane windows, all of which affect the efficiency of the unit to provideservicesShe is correct in saying that the square footage of the house is small enough to allow for asmaller unit but it is also true that the square footage is not the only considerationHowever, in ourresponse to the customer, we agreed to reduce the amount as she demanded, with the hope ofresolving her complaint amicablyIn her emailed complaint she did not raise a number of these otherissues so I am surprised she makes these additional statements now.When the work was done, our sub-contractor pulled a permit as required by New Mexico regulations,not when she “requested a city permit” as she states in her complaint to youAt the time of theinspection by the city it was the plumber’s work that was rejected by the inspector and it was theinspector that proposed that our sub-contractor could to the required adjustments to the plumber’sinstallationThere was no “substandard work” done by our sub-contractorThe ceiling access was standard in that a penetration as created to access the attic to install the ductingand connect the vents and was to allow future access to inspect and maintain the installationWhen wewere done the result was a framed opening with standard molding attached to hold up the residualpiece of ceiling material that had been removedThis is a standard ceiling access that provided minimalaccess to the attic just as you would see in most other houses of that typeYou just need to lift out thematerial to gain accessWe didn’t charge for that work.Her statement about my attempting to “retrain her from leaving the room” is exceedingly distressful tomeAs the work began and throughout the completion of the work she was demanding and critical andthe atmosphere was growing exceedingly difficultI would never conduct myself in the manner sheasserts and find her description of an incident that did not happen as distressingThat part is simply nottrue.The statement regarding her tub draining slowly is newMy only response to that is, by her ownstatements there were other workers in her house throughout the time we were thereThere is no wayto assess who might be responsible for that or even if anyone wasIt is an old house.I do not agree to any further cost adjustments regarding this jobThe amount of the invoice is correctand we require payment of the remaining amount due.Respectfully submitted,Bruce M [redacted]

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:If this were a contract entered into with good faith, I would pay the bill, but this was not the situation There were so many instances after I signed the contract that I believed were age and sexually discriminatory Some were witnessed I paid $3500.00, which I believe are the actual costs for materials and labor If there were a receipt from the business to the HVAC worker that was more than this amount, I would pay the difference. I cannot pay for discriminatory treatment There were enough instances of poor workmanship alone that the business reduced its fees, which indicated to me that a good faith contract was not being implemented Now the discrimination needs to be addressed The business did state words to the effect that he does not like discrimination, which is the first step Now he needs to acknowledge his actions I am a retired special education teacher, so have a lifetime of living, education and experience with non-discrimination, so I recognize discriminatory behaviors and excusesHis accusations about my treatment of him are some of his excuses He needs to prove those I do have witnesses that will come forward if/when the need arises to prove my words.For settlement, I will agree to paying the actual costs for materials and labor, but not the business's profit I would suggest some form of practical contrition, such as a sizable contribution to ** *** *** *** ***
Regards,
*** *** [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]

Please see attached documents regarding this dispute.  MHG HOMES, LLC, 1736 Salinas Drive, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011To: Revdex.com, 7007 Jefferson St. NE, Ste A, Albuquerque, NM 87109ID No. [redacted]Dear Sir or Madam,In way of response to the Customer’s statement, I would...

like to recount that the Customer waspresented with an bid for the work requested ( a copy of the bid for illustration purposes is attached.)and upon review and acceptance, she signed it and authorized the work to be done. That bid set forththe size of the unit to be installed as a 100,000 BTU unit, and it also stated in writing that the Customerwas required to have the gas and plumbing connections to be provided by a licensed plumber of herchoice. It also addressed the number of vents. This was the Bid that she accepted.We are providing a copy of her emailed complaint and demand regarding the 100,000 BTU unit andsome of the other issues she demanded, such as a “commission” regarding our sub-contractor.We are providing a copy of our response where we addressed those demands and agreed to anaccommodation as she requested which reduced the amounts owed. The most recent invoice isattached.I would like to restate, as we did earlier in that response, that we elected to install the larger unitbecause of the advanced age of the house, the cinder block construction, the aged insulation in theceiling and walls, and the single pane windows, all of which affect the efficiency of the unit to provideservices. She is correct in saying that the square footage of the house is small enough to allow for asmaller unit but it is also true that the square footage is not the only consideration. However, in ourresponse to the customer, we agreed to reduce the amount as she demanded, with the hope ofresolving her complaint amicably. In her emailed complaint she did not raise a number of these otherissues so I am surprised she makes these additional statements now.When the work was done, our sub-contractor pulled a permit as required by New Mexico regulations,not when she “requested a city permit” as she states in her complaint to you. At the time of theinspection by the city it was the plumber’s work that was rejected by the inspector and it was theinspector that proposed that our sub-contractor could to the required adjustments to the plumber’sinstallation. There was no “substandard work” done by our sub-contractor. The ceiling access was standard in that a penetration as created to access the attic to install the ductingand connect the vents and was to allow future access to inspect and maintain the installation. When wewere done the result was a framed opening with standard molding attached to hold up the residualpiece of ceiling material that had been removed. This is a standard ceiling access that provided minimalaccess to the attic just as you would see in most other houses of that type. You just need to lift out thematerial to gain access. We didn’t charge for that work.Her statement about my attempting to “retrain her from leaving the room” is exceedingly distressful tome. As the work began and throughout the completion of the work she was demanding and critical andthe atmosphere was growing exceedingly difficult. I would never conduct myself in the manner sheasserts and find her description of an incident that did not happen as distressing. That part is simply nottrue.The statement regarding her tub draining slowly is new. My only response to that is, by her ownstatements there were other workers in her house throughout the time we were there. There is no wayto assess who might be responsible for that or even if anyone was. It is an old house.I do not agree to any further cost adjustments regarding this job. The amount of the invoice is correctand we require payment of the remaining amount due.Respectfully submitted,Bruce M[redacted]