Michael DeLaurentis for Concrete Work

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]Michael Delaurentis stated that he obtained the proper permit based on the work that I requested I called [redacted] ***, Building Inspector for [redacted] Township, on the morning of 07/14/ [redacted] stated to me that if Mike knew there was going to be a roof built on this pad then it required a building permit, regardless of whether it would at any point be screened-in In [redacted] Township, a roof alone requires a building permitAs you will note in his written rebuttal statement to the Revdex.com, MrDelaurentis stated that I told him a roof was going to be installed, which makes his statement about pulling the appropriate permit and [redacted] confirming the propriety of his work untrue The phone number for [redacted] is ###-###-#### Please call if you need to verify this information Michael Delaurentis states that I never told him that I wanted to enclose this patio with screens and I only wanted to put a roof over top of it This is also false If this was in fact true, I could have put a roof over my existing concrete patio and saved myself $5,The fact is that putting on a screened in porch was my intention the entire time and I made this very clear to MrDelaurentis For some additional background, I actually had an estimate done back in by [redacted] ’s Home Improvements to have a screenporch built completely, but unexpectedly I had to have my roof replaced This roof replacement was done by Home Depot who gave me a 50-year warranty on the shingles and 50-year warranty on the craftsmanship After replacing our roof, our savings were depleted, and we had to wait to put on a screened -in porch As to not void the 50-year roof warranty, I decided to break this project for a screenporch into sections, the first of which was the concrete foundation I had several estimates done and decided to go with MrDelaurentis because his bid was the lowestI was always told not to go with the lowest bid, but I felt somewhat comfortable because I instructed Mike to pull a building permit and he was required to do pull one based on the work he was doing MrDelaurentis further stated that I altered my plans or concealed this information from him Why would I conceal this information from him? It would have cost him pennies to dig inches instead of inches with digging machine he had while he was on site MrDelaurentis also pointed out the fact the permit which was pulled in March of was for a roof over patio That is correct The contractor who pulled this permit was Kleckner’s Home Improvements and they were contracted to do the framing of the structural part and the roof The permit shows that they were not doing the roofing because this had to be done by Home Depot as to not void my 50-year warranty As far as the walls of the screenporch, I was going to complete this part of the project to save some money It’s not hard to put up some x 4’s and tack some screens to it There also wasn’t any electric on the permit either which I was also going to install to save some money If you need to verify any of this information, please contact [redacted] ’s Home Improvements at ###-###-#### I contacted the code department in [redacted] Township (the adjoining township in which Michael Delaurentis resides) and they told me that they would allow a screenporch on the concrete pad MrDelaurentis installed because they state that this part of the Residential Building Code is open to interpretation It states that a continuous wall needs to be inches and a non-continuous wall needs to be inches deep They said they view a screenporch as a non-continuous wall I’m not sure if he forgot which township he was working in, but this wouldn’t have mattered if he had pulled the proper permits As far as concealing information, I obtained a copy of the permit that MrDelaurentis pulled and he made no mention of the pier footings on the drawing that he submitted to the Upped Dublin Code Department to represent the work that he was going to perform I believe that if he did they would have told him to pull a building permit These plans are attached for your reference.Lastly, MrDelaurentis claims that I am trying to gain concessions from him, which is untrue I am trying to get him to perform the work that I originally contracted him to do which was to replace my existing concrete pad with a buildable one for a screenporch This has been my intent since He points out that I agreed to and signed his detailed description of work as part of our contract I did that in good faith under the assumption that a licensed professional would design the project and ensure that his work meets all appropriate township requirements As a homeowner, I am not familiar with these matters, and I was relying on the professional

Let this serve as my response in the matter referenced above and particularly to the complaint filed against me with the Revdex.com by [redacted] of [redacted] , PA [redacted] regarding work that my business firm “Michael DeLaurentis for Concrete Work” performed for him in the Fall of under contractThe Nature of the Complaint is indicated as a contract issue for "a failure to honor a contract or agreement”Nothing can be farther from the truth.Sometime in September 2013, [redacted] called me to solicit a bid/contract estimate to prepare, install and pour a concrete slab alongside his home, which slab he informed me was to serve as a patio intended in its size and location to support a roof that he wanted to extend from the home [redacted] made it clear to me that the patio would be covered by a roof but remain “open” and not be intended to support any other structural members (other than the roof) that would serve to "close” it with screens and/or doors of any sortAt no time during our discussions did [redacted] tell me that he wanted to erect a screenenclosure upon the patio (as stated in his complaint) which would have required deeper and more extended footings in installing the patio as well as a building permit beyond that required for just the roof erection [redacted] did inform me that he had already gone to the focal municipality ( [redacted] Township) Code Enforcement Department to inform them as to what he wanted to do and to verify the nature of the permit that would be required for this type of “open” roofcovered patioBased upon [redacted] 's intentions expressed to me as to what he wanted to do with this patio and according to his own specific instructions as to the type and number of pier footings required to support the roof, wrote up a contract estimate based on a detailed Description of Work which was presented to [redacted] for his review and signed by him on September 17, A copy of the signed contract is enclosed.I took the signed contract to the [redacted] Township Code Enforcement Department, applied for and on November 27, obtained a grading permit deemed appropriate for the patio installation based on the Description of Work requested by [redacted] and set forth in the contractWork preparing the site for the concrete pour was immediately commenced and on November 29, 2013, scheduled an inspection with Geri Bauer of the Code Enforcement Department in advance of the pourOn the morning of December 2, 2013, the Township inspector visited the site and gave approval to pour the concrete which was completed that dayThe calf-back incident expressed by [redacted] where he claimed that the poured patio was "crooked" and “out inches" occurred on the night of December 3, and was resolved immediately by me and my crew pulling lines and showing [redacted] to his satisfaction that the patio was indeed square to the adjoining house wall and not crooked at all

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I understand that MrDelaurentis is frustrated, as I too am
frustrated with this difficult situation.
At this time I have an unbuildable concrete slab in my backyard that
cannot be turned into a screenporch without cumbersome additional
requirements at great expense to me. It
was never my intent to disparage or attack MrDelaurentis or his company, I am
simply trying to arrive at a solution to this problem. Given that MrDelaurentis has requested that
I no longer contact him, I felt that coming to the Revdex.com was my best course of
action. I have never claimed that Mr
Delaurentis’s work was not within the terms of the contract, only that the
contract that he prepared was not designed to meet the needs of the project
that we both discussed and understood verbally, and that I relied on his
expertise as a licensed contractor to design a contract to suit my needs. At this time, I believe the issue at hand is
the verbal understanding between MrDelaurentis and myself; I have no further
rebuttal or evidence or anything else to be considered with regard to this
matter. I am respectfully requesting the
assistance of the Revdex.com helping to arrive at a resolution. As always, I welcome you to contact me or
*** *** at *** *** Township should you require any additional
clarification. Thank you
Regards,
*** ***

Let this serve as my response in the matter referenced above and particularly to the complaint filed against me with the Revdex.com by [redacted] of [redacted], PA [redacted] regarding work that my business firm “Michael DeLaurentis for Concrete Work”...

performed for him in the Fall of 2013 under contract. The Nature of the Complaint is indicated as a contract issue for "a failure to honor a contract or agreement”. Nothing can be farther from the truth.Sometime in September 2013, [redacted] called me to solicit a bid/contract estimate to prepare, install and pour a concrete slab alongside his home, which slab he informed me was to serve as a patio intended in its size and location to support a roof that he wanted to extend from the home. [redacted] made it clear to me that the patio would be covered by a roof but remain “open” and not be intended to support any other structural members (other than the roof) that would serve to "close” it with screens and/or doors of any sort. At no time during our discussions did [redacted] tell me that he wanted to erect a screened-in enclosure upon the patio (as stated in his complaint) which would have required deeper and more extended footings in installing the patio as well as a building permit beyond that required for just the roof erection. [redacted] did inform me that he had already gone to the focal municipality ([redacted] Township) Code Enforcement Department to inform them as to what he wanted to do and to verify the nature of the permit that would be required for this type of “open” roofcovered patio. Based upon [redacted]'s intentions expressed to me as to what he wanted to do with this patio and according to his own specific instructions as to the type and number of pier footings required to support the roof, wrote up a contract estimate based on a detailed Description of Work which was presented to [redacted] for his review and signed by him on September 17, 2013 A copy of the signed contract is enclosed.I took the signed contract to the [redacted] Township Code Enforcement Department, applied for and on November 27, 2013 obtained a grading permit deemed appropriate for the patio installation based on the Description of Work requested by [redacted] and set forth in the contract. Work preparing the site for the concrete pour was immediately commenced and on November 29, 2013, 1 scheduled an inspection with Geri Bauer of the Code Enforcement Department in advance of the pour. On the morning of December 2, 2013, the Township inspector visited the site and gave approval to pour the concrete which was completed that day. The calf-back incident expressed by [redacted] where he claimed that the poured patio was "crooked" and “out 8 inches" occurred on the night of December 3, 2013 and was resolved immediately by me and my crew pulling lines and showing [redacted] to his satisfaction that the patio was indeed square to the adjoining house wall and not crooked at all.

it is difficult and frustrating for me to continue to engage in this exchange when my initial response was clear and to the point that at no time before or during or immediately after the completion of the patio construction in this case did [redacted] ever disclose to me that he had plans to construct any type of enclosure, screened-in or otherwise, upon the new patio that he wanted me to install for him. While I did understand that a roof was going to be erected over the patio, no construction plans or sketches of any sort were provided to me by [redacted], either because [redacted]'s prospective plans were not yet set or available to show me or simply because the scope of my work to be done for him only entailed the patio installation. As such being told only that a roof extension from his house would have to be supported and without any written plans as to that roof or any other planned structure, bid the job based on a description of the work which [redacted] approved and made the subject of our contract a copy of which was previously provided. With that signed contract in hand for the patio installation and no plans from [redacted] as to the prospective construction to be done, I was advised by [redacted] Township that a grading permit would be all that was needed to proceed with the contract work. A building permit presumably for any roof construction over the patio would not be required for my contract work but would be later after specific plans were submitted. My first response was intended to bring ail this to light and that I essentially completed the work that I was obligated to do in accordance with the contract signed and approved by [redacted] under proper permit and supervision by the Township Code Enforcement Department. I had hoped that my first response would clear the charges made against me, satisfied the Revdex.com that my work performance was appropriate and protected my A-plus rating. Unfortunately the forum remains open and the complainant in this case is allowed to rant on with hearsay and irrelevant statements that he somehow believes charges me with responsibility for doing work not specified in our contract and its detailed description of work. in this case, while 1 could respond to the hearsay and irrelevancies stated by the complainant, some of which are clearly intended to disparage me and my reputation, I think that would be unproductive and only lead to more of the same from [redacted]. I would rather just respond here and reiterate that my patio work was performed and completed pursuant to the clear terms of a written contract that was estimated in its cost, endorsed and signed by the complainant in advance and then carried out with the designated permit required by the Township. In this case, the contract should speak for itself and my work done under the contract not be judged in favor of oral representations that are now being made by [redacted] in his complaint but never made to me prior to the work performed.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]Michael Delaurentis stated that he obtained the proper
permit based on the work that I requested. 
I called [redacted], Building Inspector for [redacted] Township, on
the morning of 07/14/2014.   [redacted]
stated to me that if Mike knew there was going to be a roof built on this pad
then it required a building permit, regardless of whether it would at any point
be screened-in.  In [redacted]
Township, a roof alone requires a building permit. As you will note in his written
rebuttal statement to the Revdex.com, Mr. Delaurentis stated that I told him a roof
was going to be installed, which makes his statement about pulling the
appropriate permit and [redacted] confirming the propriety of his work untrue.  The phone number for [redacted] is
###-###-####.  Please call if
you need to verify this information.  Michael Delaurentis states that I never told him that I
wanted to enclose this patio with screens and I only wanted to put a roof over
top of it.  This is also false.  If this was in fact true, I could have put a
roof over my existing concrete patio and saved myself $5,000.00. The fact is
that putting on a screened in porch was my intention the entire time and I made
this very clear to Mr. Delaurentis.  For
some additional background, I actually had an estimate done back in 2011 by
[redacted]’s Home Improvements to have a screened-in porch built completely, but unexpectedly
I had to have my roof replaced.  This roof
replacement was done by Home Depot who gave me a 50-year warranty on the
shingles and 50-year warranty on the craftsmanship.  After replacing our roof, our savings were
depleted, and we had to wait to put on a screened -in porch.  As to not void the 50-year roof warranty, I
decided to break this project for a screened-in porch into sections, the first
of which was the concrete foundation.  I
had several estimates done and decided to go with Mr. Delaurentis because his
bid was the lowest. I was always told not to go with the lowest bid, but I felt
somewhat comfortable because I instructed Mike to pull a building permit and he
was required to do pull one based on the work he was doing.  Mr. Delaurentis further stated that I altered my plans or
concealed this information from him.  Why
would I conceal this information from him? It would have cost him pennies to
dig 36 inches instead of 18 inches with digging machine he had while he was on
site.  Mr. Delaurentis also pointed out
the fact the permit which was pulled in March of 2014 was for a roof over
patio.  That is correct.  The contractor who pulled this permit was
Kleckner’s Home Improvements and they were contracted to do the framing of the
structural part and the roof.  The permit
shows that they were not doing the roofing because this had to be done by Home
Depot as to not void my 50-year warranty. 
As far as the walls of the screened-in porch, I was going to complete
this part of the project to save some money. 
It’s not hard to put up some 4 x 4’s and tack some screens to it.  There also wasn’t any electric on the permit
either which I was also going to install to save some money.  If you need to verify any of this information,
please contact [redacted]’s Home Improvements at ###-###-####.   I contacted the code department in [redacted] Township (the
adjoining township in which Michael Delaurentis resides) and they told me that
they would allow a screened-in porch on the concrete pad Mr. Delaurentis
installed because they state that this part of the 2009 Residential Building
Code is open to interpretation.  It
states that a continuous wall needs to be 36 inches and a non-continuous wall
needs to be 18 inches deep.  They said
they view a screened-in porch as a non-continuous wall.  I’m not sure if he forgot which township he
was working in, but this wouldn’t have mattered if he had pulled the proper
permits.   As far as concealing information, I obtained a copy of the
permit that Mr. Delaurentis pulled and he made no mention of the pier footings
on the drawing that he submitted to the Upped Dublin Code Department to
represent the work that he was going to perform.  I believe that if he did they would have told
him to pull a building permit.  These
plans are attached for your reference.Lastly, Mr. Delaurentis claims that I am trying to gain
concessions from him, which is untrue.  I
am trying to get him to perform the work that I originally contracted him to do
which was to replace my existing concrete pad with a buildable one for a
screened-in porch.  This has been my
intent since 2011.  He points out that I
agreed to and signed his detailed description of work as part of our
contract.  I did that in good faith under
the assumption that a licensed professional would design the project and ensure
that his work meets all appropriate township requirements.  As a homeowner, I am not familiar with these
matters, and I was relying on the professional.

Review: The following is my account of the events leading to my decision to request assistance from the Revdex.com in a dispute with Michael DeLaurentis and Michael DeLaurentis Concrete of [redacted], PA.

My wife and I wanted to put on a screened-in porch on our house. I went to the code department for [redacted] Township to see exactly what we need to do for this project. They told me that I needed to do an impervious coverage permit. I did this, and then asked them if I needed to pull the building permit. They said this needed to be pulled by my concrete contractor.

When Michael DeLaurentis came out to do the estimate, I told him we needed the existing concrete patio removed because it wasn’t buildable and we wanted to put on a screened in porch. We also told him to install 3 pier footings and the end of the pad to support the load of the roof. The pad was poured at the end of November of 2013. The concrete contractor left me a message and wanted to know when he could pick up his check. When I got home, I noticed the pad looked crooked. I put a laser down the sidewalk and it appeared to be out 8 inches. I called Mr. DeLaurentis and he came right out. After 10-15 minutes of arguing with each other, he showed me the pad was square to the house and it was the old sidewalk that was out of square. He kept insisting that this pad had to be square because we were going to build on it. If the pad wasn’t square, then the roof would be crooked.

Since then, I had signed with a general contractor to come out and do the framing of the porch. He called me around April 3, 2014, and told me the township would not give him a permit because the pad was not buildable. They said Mike DeLaurentis pulled a grading permit and not a building permit. They said the pier footing needed to be in sono tubes separate from the pad and the perimeter footing needed to be dug 36 inches not 18 inches. I called the township and asked why they let him pour this pad even though it had pier footings in it and they responded that it was Mike’s fault for not pulling the proper permits. The building inspector, [redacted], recommended that we put three piers outside the pad and hang the walls off the ceiling with 2 inches of foam underneath and this would be a way to fix the problem. Mike agreed to install the new pier footings at no cost to us.

Unfortunately, my general contractor informed me that this solution was not feasible. He stated these walls would eventually move and we would have problems with the doors and possible roof leaks. My general contractor sent me my deposit back minus permit fees. I contacted Roger again and he said we could only way to correct this issue besides ripping up the pad and redoing the whole thing, is to pour a footer all the way around the existing pad 12 inches wide and 36 inches deep with ½ inch L shaped rebar epoxied into the existing pad. I emailed Mike one last time to try and remedy this situation and he did not respond to that email. I sent a follow up email to which he called and gave me the name and number of his attorney. He told me he had nothing else to say to me.Desired Settlement: At this time, I am seeking some concession from the concrete contractor Michael DeLaurentis in an effort to get a buildable concrete solution, as we originally sought when contracting him. Any help is greatly appreciated. This is his contact information: address cell ###-###-####; work ###-###-####; and email [redacted]. The phone number for [redacted] Township is ###-###-####.

Business

Response:

Let this serve as my response in the matter referenced above and particularly to the complaint filed against me with the Revdex.com by [redacted] of [redacted], PA [redacted] regarding work that my business firm “Michael DeLaurentis for Concrete Work” performed for him in the Fall of 2013 under contract. The Nature of the Complaint is indicated as a contract issue for "a failure to honor a contract or agreement”. Nothing can be farther from the truth.Sometime in September 2013, [redacted] called me to solicit a bid/contract estimate to prepare, install and pour a concrete slab alongside his home, which slab he informed me was to serve as a patio intended in its size and location to support a roof that he wanted to extend from the home. [redacted] made it clear to me that the patio would be covered by a roof but remain “open” and not be intended to support any other structural members (other than the roof) that would serve to "close” it with screens and/or doors of any sort. At no time during our discussions did [redacted] tell me that he wanted to erect a screened-in enclosure upon the patio (as stated in his complaint) which would have required deeper and more extended footings in installing the patio as well as a building permit beyond that required for just the roof erection. [redacted] did inform me that he had already gone to the focal municipality ([redacted] Township) Code Enforcement Department to inform them as to what he wanted to do and to verify the nature of the permit that would be required for this type of “open” roofcovered patio. Based upon [redacted]'s intentions expressed to me as to what he wanted to do with this patio and according to his own specific instructions as to the type and number of pier footings required to support the roof, wrote up a contract estimate based on a detailed Description of Work which was presented to [redacted] for his review and signed by him on September 17, 2013 A copy of the signed contract is enclosed.I took the signed contract to the [redacted] Township Code Enforcement Department, applied for and on November 27, 2013 obtained a grading permit deemed appropriate for the patio installation based on the Description of Work requested by [redacted] and set forth in the contract. Work preparing the site for the concrete pour was immediately commenced and on November 29, 2013, 1 scheduled an inspection with Geri Bauer of the Code Enforcement Department in advance of the pour. On the morning of December 2, 2013, the Township inspector visited the site and gave approval to pour the concrete which was completed that day. The calf-back incident expressed by [redacted] where he claimed that the poured patio was "crooked" and “out 8 inches" occurred on the night of December 3, 2013 and was resolved immediately by me and my crew pulling lines and showing [redacted] to his satisfaction that the patio was indeed square to the adjoining house wall and not crooked at all.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]Michael Delaurentis stated that he obtained the proper

permit based on the work that I requested.

I called [redacted], Building Inspector for [redacted] Township, on

the morning of 07/14/2014. [redacted]

stated to me that if Mike knew there was going to be a roof built on this pad

then it required a building permit, regardless of whether it would at any point

be screened-in. In [redacted]

Township, a roof alone requires a building permit. As you will note in his written

rebuttal statement to the Revdex.com, Mr. Delaurentis stated that I told him a roof

was going to be installed, which makes his statement about pulling the

appropriate permit and [redacted] confirming the propriety of his work untrue. The phone number for [redacted] is

###-###-####. Please call if

you need to verify this information. Michael Delaurentis states that I never told him that I

wanted to enclose this patio with screens and I only wanted to put a roof over

top of it. This is also false. If this was in fact true, I could have put a

roof over my existing concrete patio and saved myself $5,000.00. The fact is

that putting on a screened in porch was my intention the entire time and I made

this very clear to Mr. Delaurentis. For

some additional background, I actually had an estimate done back in 2011 by

[redacted]’s Home Improvements to have a screened-in porch built completely, but unexpectedly

I had to have my roof replaced. This roof

replacement was done by Home Depot who gave me a 50-year warranty on the

shingles and 50-year warranty on the craftsmanship. After replacing our roof, our savings were

depleted, and we had to wait to put on a screened -in porch. As to not void the 50-year roof warranty, I

decided to break this project for a screened-in porch into sections, the first

of which was the concrete foundation. I

had several estimates done and decided to go with Mr. Delaurentis because his

bid was the lowest. I was always told not to go with the lowest bid, but I felt

somewhat comfortable because I instructed Mike to pull a building permit and he

was required to do pull one based on the work he was doing. Mr. Delaurentis further stated that I altered my plans or

concealed this information from him. Why

would I conceal this information from him? It would have cost him pennies to

dig 36 inches instead of 18 inches with digging machine he had while he was on

site. Mr. Delaurentis also pointed out

the fact the permit which was pulled in March of 2014 was for a roof over

patio. That is correct. The contractor who pulled this permit was

Kleckner’s Home Improvements and they were contracted to do the framing of the

structural part and the roof. The permit

shows that they were not doing the roofing because this had to be done by Home

Depot as to not void my 50-year warranty.

As far as the walls of the screened-in porch, I was going to complete

this part of the project to save some money.

It’s not hard to put up some 4 x 4’s and tack some screens to it. There also wasn’t any electric on the permit

either which I was also going to install to save some money. If you need to verify any of this information,

please contact [redacted]’s Home Improvements at ###-###-####. I contacted the code department in [redacted] Township (the

adjoining township in which Michael Delaurentis resides) and they told me that

they would allow a screened-in porch on the concrete pad Mr. Delaurentis

installed because they state that this part of the 2009 Residential Building

Code is open to interpretation. It

states that a continuous wall needs to be 36 inches and a non-continuous wall

needs to be 18 inches deep. They said

they view a screened-in porch as a non-continuous wall. I’m not sure if he forgot which township he

was working in, but this wouldn’t have mattered if he had pulled the proper

permits. As far as concealing information, I obtained a copy of the

permit that Mr. Delaurentis pulled and he made no mention of the pier footings

on the drawing that he submitted to the Upped Dublin Code Department to

represent the work that he was going to perform. I believe that if he did they would have told

him to pull a building permit. These

plans are attached for your reference.Lastly, Mr. Delaurentis claims that I am trying to gain

concessions from him, which is untrue. I

am trying to get him to perform the work that I originally contracted him to do

which was to replace my existing concrete pad with a buildable one for a

screened-in porch. This has been my

intent since 2011. He points out that I

agreed to and signed his detailed description of work as part of our

contract. I did that in good faith under

the assumption that a licensed professional would design the project and ensure

that his work meets all appropriate township requirements. As a homeowner, I am not familiar with these

matters, and I was relying on the professional.

Business

Response:

it is difficult and frustrating for me to continue to engage in this exchange when my initial response was clear and to the point that at no time before or during or immediately after the completion of the patio construction in this case did [redacted] ever disclose to me that he had plans to construct any type of enclosure, screened-in or otherwise, upon the new patio that he wanted me to install for him. While I did understand that a roof was going to be erected over the patio, no construction plans or sketches of any sort were provided to me by [redacted], either because [redacted]'s prospective plans were not yet set or available to show me or simply because the scope of my work to be done for him only entailed the patio installation. As such being told only that a roof extension from his house would have to be supported and without any written plans as to that roof or any other planned structure, bid the job based on a description of the work which [redacted] approved and made the subject of our contract a copy of which was previously provided. With that signed contract in hand for the patio installation and no plans from [redacted] as to the prospective construction to be done, I was advised by [redacted] Township that a grading permit would be all that was needed to proceed with the contract work. A building permit presumably for any roof construction over the patio would not be required for my contract work but would be later after specific plans were submitted. My first response was intended to bring ail this to light and that I essentially completed the work that I was obligated to do in accordance with the contract signed and approved by [redacted] under proper permit and supervision by the Township Code Enforcement Department. I had hoped that my first response would clear the charges made against me, satisfied the Revdex.com that my work performance was appropriate and protected my A-plus rating. Unfortunately the forum remains open and the complainant in this case is allowed to rant on with hearsay and irrelevant statements that he somehow believes charges me with responsibility for doing work not specified in our contract and its detailed description of work. in this case, while 1 could respond to the hearsay and irrelevancies stated by the complainant, some of which are clearly intended to disparage me and my reputation, I think that would be unproductive and only lead to more of the same from [redacted]. I would rather just respond here and reiterate that my patio work was performed and completed pursuant to the clear terms of a written contract that was estimated in its cost, endorsed and signed by the complainant in advance and then carried out with the designated permit required by the Township. In this case, the contract should speak for itself and my work done under the contract not be judged in favor of oral representations that are now being made by [redacted] in his complaint but never made to me prior to the work performed.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I understand that Mr. Delaurentis is frustrated, as I too am

frustrated with this difficult situation.

At this time I have an unbuildable concrete slab in my backyard that

cannot be turned into a screened-in porch without cumbersome additional

requirements at great expense to me. It

was never my intent to disparage or attack Mr. Delaurentis or his company, I am

simply trying to arrive at a solution to this problem. Given that Mr. Delaurentis has requested that

I no longer contact him, I felt that coming to the Revdex.com was my best course of

action. I have never claimed that Mr.

Delaurentis’s work was not within the terms of the contract, only that the

contract that he prepared was not designed to meet the needs of the project

that we both discussed and understood verbally, and that I relied on his

expertise as a licensed contractor to design a contract to suit my needs. At this time, I believe the issue at hand is

the verbal understanding between Mr. Delaurentis and myself; I have no further

rebuttal or evidence or anything else to be considered with regard to this

matter. I am respectfully requesting the

assistance of the Revdex.com helping to arrive at a resolution. As always, I welcome you to contact me or

[redacted] at [redacted] Township should you require any additional

clarification. Thank you.

Regards,