Michigan Collection Bureau

To whom it may concern: Our firm did contract with *** *** *** *** to construct a western red cedar deck to the rear of the home located at *** *** *** *** *** *** *** on May 14th, 2015. The agreement specifies a western red cedar deck with two benches, two gates,
stairs and an octagon section to one side. When the carpenters were on the jobsite the carpenters recommended a few changes to which *** *** *** *** agreed to. Namely, converting one stairway to a ramp and changing the location of the railing on the existing patioTowards the end of the construction of the deck the customer approached the carpenters about deck staining. The carpenters relayed the information to me and I quizzed the sales representative about it as well. The sales rep told me that we don’t do staining (which we do not) and that the homeowner got the idea of stain because she saw a picture of a stained deck when the sales rep was describing deck board directionIn order to keep the homeowner happy I agree to have the deck stained at a cost of $1717.92. The staining was completed and I personally visited with *** *** *** *** to collect the balance due on the work of 12,107. They wrote me a check and were extremely happy with the entire projectIn September we received a call for service on this deck for a sticking gate latch. I sent the carpenter out to fix it and while he was there the homeowners were complaining that the screws in the railing cap were sunk into the wood too far and they did not like the appearance. Counter sinking the railing cap screws is considered “best practice” in deck building. The homeowner even had a builder friend look at the deck and I was told that he even said the deck was very well built. In an effort to appease the homeowner the carpenter used wood putty to fill the holes and at the request of the homeowner, he used wood putty to fill the natural cracks in the wood itselfThe carpenter re stained the top cap and the homeowner was happyCost of service was Later in the fall the homeowner called to complain that the stain on several of the deck boards was lifting off the wood. I personally visited and inspected the stain and found board that was affected. The carpenter told me that while we was there, there was an area rug in that area The other boards (2) that were affected showed small chip marks in the stain from what I surmised to be the result of moving the metal-legged chairs on the deckI told the homeowner that the staining was given to them for free and that I wasn’t going to warranty materials that are free. Several more phone calls we finally agreed to replace and re stain three deck boards and feet of railing top capThe work was performed with new wood and using the existing stain that was used on the deck. The original staining crew left the remaining stain to use for touchups where needed. The stain the homeowner gave my service man to use was semitransparent not solid like the originalHe used the semitransparent on the deck top cap railing and had solid stain mixed to match the solid stain used originallyCost for service was $As the owner of Americraft Siding and Windows it is my continued effort to insure the satisfaction of our customers. I feel that we have gone above and beyond any contractual or legal requirements to appease this homeowner. The total cost of servicing for a “non-warrantied” item is $On January 19th we received an email stating that the homeowner, after speaking with Contractors, wants for someone else to repair the deck Sincerely, *** *** President Americraft Siding and Windows Inc***