Midwest Wrecking Reviews (%countItem)
Midwest Wrecking Rating
Address: 10200 N I 35 Service Rd, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States, 73131-5021
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Fax: |
+1 (405) 478-0901 |
Web: |
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for Midwest Wrecking
Add new contacts
Midwest Wrecking was hired to remove a house destroyed by fire, along with the slab foundation, at a property that I owned and subsequently sold. In reference to the slab foundation, the contract stated: "All concrete will be hauled off-site and disposed of properly." After I sold the property, the subsequent owner found substantial portions of concrete on the job site and billed me for his costs to remove them. I settled with the owner for $1800.
Midwest Wrecking claims that the concrete was not considered part of the "slab" but consisted of supporting components such as piers. The company claims that it delivered on its obligation to remove the "slab," yet at no time did the company differentiate between slab and other concrete components in its description of work to be performed, nor did it ask me whether I wanted the additional components removed or left behind, nor did it explain the difference between slab and other concrete components, nor did it ask or receive permission from me to leave concrete behind and bury it. I had every reason to believe that all concrete had been removed, both by terms of the contract and what a reasonable customer would expect, yet in the end, I paid for the company's negligence and/or error.
I requested multiple times that the company participate with me in reimbursing part of the owner's costs, and each time it refused.
Please see the attached proposal of what work was part of the contract.1. Midwest was hired to remove a house destroyed by fire.2. The alternate of removing the slab was agreed upon by the customer.3. According to the proposal, Midwest was to remove the basement slab and the concrete paving under the deck.4. The statement “all concrete will be hauled off-site and disposed of properly” refers to the removal of the slab and concrete paving under the deck.5. At no time, did Midwest obligate itself to remove more than the basement slab and the concrete paving under the deck.6. The proposal did not include concrete footings and piers. It only included the removal of the slab and the concrete paving under the deck.7. It is unfortunate that Mr. did not include the concrete footings and piers in his contract. However, at the time of the proposal and direction, Mr. never mentioned the footings or the piers. His only request was the removal of the slab.8. As you can see from the proposal the removal of the basement slab and the concrete paving under the deck was an alternate which Mr. chose to have done.9. There was no proposal given for the removal of the footings and the piers because Mr. did not request it.10. Midwest has had several conversations with Mr. and he fails to understand that the contract work was completed as agreed.11. We truly are sorry for his misunderstanding but Midwest completed and fulfilled all requirements of the contract that was signed by Mr..I am happy to discuss this with you at any time.
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: The company fails to accept responsibility for neglecting to inform me of the option to remove foundation components that it considered "non-slab." The situation is akin to going to the dentist and asking to have a tooth pulled, and having the dentist decide to remove only the crown while leaving behind the roots. The patient's reasonable expectation would be that the root would be removed with the rest of the attached tooth. But at the very least, if the dentist were inclined to leave the root, presumably he or she would inform the patient and offer the option to remove it. Why would anyone want only the top layer of concrete to be removed from a building site? And if that was the assumption, why wouldn't I be asked? Nothing in the contract or in discussions of work to be performed indicated that concrete footings were separate and would be left in the ground. A simple acknowledgment of the company's error would have gone a long way toward appeasing me as the customer. Instead, the company continues to offer the same explanation, which at best requires that I as the customer would have had a thorough knowledge and understanding of the construction/demolition business to even know what to request.
Sincerely