Mile High Synthetic Turf

I, Libby C [redacted] , personally spoke to [redacted] on separate occasions and he verbally accepted our quote and asked to be added onto the schedule and advised me which turf he selected I reached out to [redacted] a 2nd time to make him aware we were coming out to install his turf and of course, I announced who I was and what company I was with He was very happy we were coming out to install his turf Mile High Synthetic Turf did nothing in error and has been very professional with Mr [redacted] the entire time Mile High Synthetic Turf would not "swoop" in and install turf in error

[redacted] Here is the content of our correspondence with MHST Dear Sir/Madam, In follow up to our email to you of June (please see copy of that email below), this letter serves to notify you that MHST ma***al remains abandoned by MHST on our property Here, we remind you of relevant facts and state our conclusions as well as next steps therefore As a reminder of the facts, on or about June 2017, MHST entered the homeowners', [redacted] and [redacted] ***, propertyIn the course of performing actions that the homeowners did not contract for, approve of, or accept from MHST; MHST abandoned ma***als - including large pieces of synthetic turf - on the homeowners' property Also In fact: - The homeowners did not purchase these ma***als - The homeowner's neither contracted with MHST to obtain these ma***als; nor did the homeowners make any arrangement to purchase these ma***als from MHST at a future date - The homeowners did not accept these ma***als from MHST- The homeowners did not acknowledge receipt of, much less satisfaction with, the MHSTs ma***als, actions, services or work- The homeowners did not grant MHST access to their propertyThe home owners were out of town on June 2017, when presumably MHST employees or agents, opened the closed gate of the fence surrounding the homeowner's property, entered the homeowners property, and performed acts which the homeowner did not allow, request, or contract for with MHST MHST performed destructive acts to the homeowners property and left ma***al belonging to MHST on the homeowner's property - These ma***als are unsightly and occupy substantial space on the homeowners property; rendering their property less attractive and less useable than prior to MHST's actions- These ma***als were purchased by and are owned by MHSTNo transfer of the MHST property to the homeowners occurred - The homeowners can neither reasonably protect nor can they store these ma***als for MHST - The homeowners provided MHST a reasonable time (three business days) to remove these ma***alsAs of June 2017, That date had passed - To date, MHST has not removed their property - To date, MHST has not made any arrangements with the homeowners for the removal of MHST owned ma***al-To date, MHST has neither made any communication of their intention to remove the property to the homeowners ; nor, has MHST requested the homeowners to protect and store their property MHST has not offered the homeowners business terms or offered the homeowners consideration for the protection and storage (such as MHST renting space from the homeowners, etc.) of their property - To date, MHST has made no effort to assist in moving their ma***al to a less objectionable part of the homeowners propertyOut of consideration for neighbors and to proceed with the desired use of their home, the homeowners were forced to move these large, heavy and dirty ma***als themselves- To date, the only substantive communication from MHST has been an invoice and a request to 'Like' them on Facebook- The homeowners have requested MHST to provide reasonable and usual substantiation of their invoice; including: - a contract for services and ma***als between MHST and the homeowners - documentation of the homeowners authorization for access to and work on their property - documentation of the homeowner's acceptance of or approval as satisfactory the services performed by MHST, work done by MHST, and ma***als provided by MHST- To date, MHST has not provided the homeowners with such documentation to substantiate their invoicePending that and given the facts outlined here, the homeowners find MHST's invoice to be frivolous and invalidThe homeowners have given MHST seven business days from the date of their invoice (i.edue to weekends and a national holiday, MHST is to provide this substantiation of their invoice to the homeowners no later than July 2017)Therefore: 1) The homeowners consider the ma***als left on their property by MHST to be abandoned and unlawfully 'dumped' solid waste 2) The homeowners find these ma***als to be unsightly, inconvenient, unsafe, and burdensome3) The homeowners have contacted the City of Denver to investigate and to assist in the removal of these ma***als with an environmentally appropriate disposalThe homeowners reasonably assert that MHST bears responsibility for any associated costsThe homeowners have no obligation to pay for this disposal 4) The homeowners explicitly assert that their effort to obtain removal and disposal of MHST property from their home is strictly appropriate and necessaryThe homeowners actions in this regard cannot, should not, and shall not be construed by MHST or others as a form of transfer or sale by MHST to the homeownersThe homeowners actions in this regard do not represent the homeowners' acceptance of the ma***als from MHST; nor do the homeowners' actions represent any desire by the homeowners to own these ma***als - The homeowners continue to patiently wait for MHST to provide the requested customary and usual substantiation of the invoice which MHST emailed to the homeowners- The homeowners, with this letter, specifically rejects MHST's request to 'Like' them on Facebook A signed copy of this email will be mailed by certified mail to the Mile High Synthetic Turf business addressPlease do not hesitate to contact the homeowners at [redacted] Very Respectfully, [redacted] *** [redacted] [redacted] *** [redacted] [redacted] ***

Mile High Synthetic Turf spoke with Mr [redacted] and he advised which turf he wanted and was told he would be put on the schedule for install Libby spoke with Mr [redacted] on the phone a few days prior to install and advised we were coming to install his turf Mile High Synthetic Turf is at no fault for installing this turf

Revdex.com:I have decided NOT to participate in Binding Arbitration to resolve my complaint with ID [redacted] I understand that because I have decided to not pursue arbitration that Revdex.com must close my complaintI have decided to pursue legally or via other avenuesRegards,Mile High Synthetic Turf

Thank you. Here is my rationale for rejecting the response: 1)I did not give consent to Mile High Synthetic Turf to perform workWe considered Mile High Synthetic Turf's bid, but did not accept their offer We did not remit consideration to Mile High Synthetic Turf We chose another vendor and proceeded with the standard practices with the vendor whose offer we accepted. 2) We awarded our business to *** *** on the strength of their bid, sample ma***als, detailed response to our clarifying questions of all vendors, and recommendation from a neighbors who had similar work performedWe followed standard business practices: We reviewed the offers of vendors including that of Mile High Synthetic Turf , We accepted *** ***'s offer and paid *** *** consideration (percent of estimate) prior to workWith *** ***, we established the elements of a contract and memorialised that in a written contract Because this work involved contracting work for our residence and the unique legal implications for property associated with residential contracting, it is unwise to pursue contracting work absent an actual contract 3)Mile High Synthetic Turf asserts that I gave verbal approval for the workThis assertion is disingenuous and not reasonableOne test of credibility when examining contrary assertions is to examine the interests of the respective parties and consider whose interests were served by the action or outcomeIn their response, Mile High asserts that I verbally agreed to their performing work and benefited from that workIn testing this assertion against reasonable interests, I clearly have no interest that is served by acting as Mile High Synthetic Turf asserts, specificallyAThis would increases my expense As we had contracted and paid another vendor for the work, we would lose the money already paid to our contracted vendor while still bearing the costs of Mile High Synthetic Turf.s workThis would increase the cost of our project by approximately sixty percent.BThis would lower the quality of the ma***als and installation Mile High Synthetic Turf s bid was less expensive than the vendor we chose We did not select based on cost, rather we selected based on valueMile High s ma***als and preparation wee of lower quality Were I to have Mile High perform the work, we would have lower quality ma***als and worse installation at a sixty percent increase in costAgain, it would defy reasonable self interest on my part to act as Mile High asserts CMy profession involves complex contracting of service agreements for a large national companyI would reasonably apply professional knowledge and experience to this transactionInformal arrangements are notoriously murky and serve neither parties interestResidential contracting particularly requires formal contractingThe financial and liability created for me and my family by having an informal agreement are vastAbsent a contract or substantially documented agreement for the work, an injured worker could be adjudicated as a guest to my home exposing us to significant liabilityAdditionally, disagreements regarding contracted work on private property can create liens on that propertyFor these and many other reasons,it would be contrary to my and my family's interest to have contract work performed by informal agreement It is also contrary to myprofessional experience Using a Reasonable Man test to evaluate Mile High Synthetic Turf s assertion that I consented to an informal agreement, that assertion is not reasonable.Mile High Synthetic Turf asserts that I was called by them and agreed to their performing the workWhile it is possible that I was called by them, it is not reasonable to assert that I authorised , agreed to, or contracted for services with them by phoneTo put their assertion in context, I offer the followingAfter contracting with *** ***, I was contacted multiple times to work out details of schedulingI did recieve a call informing me that the work would be done on June rather than on June I believed this call was from *** ***, because that is the company we awarded our business , with whom we had contracted, and with whom we were actively workingIt stretches credibility to imply that I would reasonably expect- a company with whom we had no business arrangement whatsoever to call me and arrange scheduling- that I would recognise the voice or name of a representative of a company with whom my contact was limited to requesting a bid and other clarifying questions regarding their bid.- for a company to call me and schedule work without explicit agreement to do that work is not a standard business practiceI am a businessman and have a reasonable expectation of standard business practices from othersMile High Synthetic Turf's unreasonable assertion on this point is , essentially, that I should have recognised their representative 's voice by phone and should not have discussed scheduling with their representative - unless I intended to contract with them for the workMile High Synthetic Turf then proceeds from this to assert a conclusion that this scheduling discussion created a form of business agreement between usThese assertions and that conclusion are unreasonable and for the following reasons: AThe proximate cause of my being engaged in a scheduling discussion by a Mile High Synthetic Turf representative is an unusual, improper, and non standard business practice on the part of Mile High Synthetic TurfCertainly, no one would reasonably expect a company with whom he/ she has no business arrangement to contact them to schedule work.BThe representative did not; nor did I create the elements of a business agreement / contracte for services and ma***als on this phone callNo offer was made, no offer was accepted, no consideration was requested or remittedThere was no clarifying written communication from this call that identified the caller or established the business arrangement which Mile High synthetic Turf now assertsMile High Synthetic Turf acted in an unpredictable, unexpected, and unprofessional mannerWhile I do not assert that Mile High Synthetic Turf intentionally deceived me, I do note that their non standard business practices would benefit them by potentially 'taking' business not earned in a good faith request for proposal processIt is disingenuous of them to blame me for answering a phone call from someone that I reasonably assumed I had engaged in the standard manner.Thank you

Dear Revdex.com:Thank you for all the work of your committeeWe respect your determination. We would like my complaint ID ***, to be handled through an Arbitration hearing with Revdex.com Very Respectfully, *** *** *** ***

[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
Here is the content of our correspondence with MHST Dear Sir/Madam, In follow up to our email to you of 21 June 2017 (please see copy of that email below), this letter serves to notify you that MHST ma[redacted]al remains abandoned by MHST on our property.  Here, we remind you of relevant facts and state our conclusions as well as next steps therefore.  As a reminder of the facts, on or about 19 June 2017, MHST entered the homeowners', [redacted] and [redacted], property. In the course of performing actions that the homeowners did not contract for, approve of, or accept from MHST; MHST abandoned ma[redacted]als - including large pieces of synthetic turf - on the homeowners' property.  Also In fact: - The homeowners did not purchase these ma[redacted]als.  - The homeowner's neither contracted with MHST to obtain these ma[redacted]als; nor did the homeowners make any arrangement to purchase these ma[redacted]als from MHST at a future date.  - The homeowners  did not accept these ma[redacted]als from MHST. - The homeowners did not acknowledge receipt of, much less satisfaction with, the MHSTs ma[redacted]als, actions, services or work. - The homeowners  did not grant MHST access to their property. The home owners were out of town on 19 June 2017, when presumably MHST employees or agents, opened the closed gate of the fence surrounding the homeowner's  property, entered the homeowners property, and performed acts which the homeowner did not allow, request, or contract for with MHST.  MHST performed destructive acts to the homeowners property and left ma[redacted]al belonging to MHST on  the homeowner's property.  - These ma[redacted]als are unsightly and occupy substantial space on the homeowners property;  rendering their property less attractive and less useable than prior to MHST's actions. - These ma[redacted]als were purchased by and are owned by MHST. No transfer of the MHST property to the homeowners occurred.  - The homeowners can neither reasonably protect nor can they store these  ma[redacted]als for MHST.  - The homeowners provided MHST a reasonable time (three business days) to remove these ma[redacted]als. As of 26 June 2017, That date had passed.  - To date, MHST has not removed their property.  - To date, MHST has not made any arrangements with the homeowners for the removal of MHST owned ma[redacted]al. -To date, MHST has neither made any communication of their intention to remove the property to the homeowners ; nor, has MHST requested the homeowners to protect and store their property.  MHST has not offered the homeowners business terms or offered the homeowners consideration for the protection and storage (such as MHST renting space from the homeowners, etc.) of their property.  - To date, MHST has made no effort to assist in moving their ma[redacted]al to a less objectionable part of the homeowners property. Out of consideration for neighbors and to proceed with the desired use of their home, the homeowners were forced to move these large, heavy and dirty ma[redacted]als themselves. - To date, the only substantive communication from MHST has been an invoice and a request to 'Like' them on Facebook. - The homeowners have requested MHST to provide reasonable and usual substantiation of their invoice; including:           - a contract for services and ma[redacted]als between MHST and the homeowners           - documentation of the homeowners  authorization for access to and work on their property          - documentation of the homeowner's acceptance of or approval as satisfactory the services performed by MHST, work done by MHST, and ma[redacted]als provided by MHST. - To date, MHST has not provided the homeowners with such documentation to substantiate their invoice. Pending that and given the facts outlined here, the homeowners find MHST's invoice to be frivolous and invalid. The homeowners have given MHST seven business days from the date of their invoice (i.e. due to weekends and a national holiday, MHST is to provide this substantiation of their invoice to the homeowners no later than 7 July 2017). Therefore: 1)  The homeowners consider the ma[redacted]als left on their property by MHST to be abandoned and unlawfully 'dumped' solid waste.  2) The homeowners find these ma[redacted]als to be unsightly, inconvenient, unsafe, and burdensome. 3) The homeowners have contacted the City of Denver to investigate and to assist in the removal of these ma[redacted]als with an environmentally appropriate disposal. The homeowners reasonably assert that MHST bears responsibility for any associated costs. The homeowners have no obligation to pay for this disposal.  4) The homeowners explicitly assert that their effort to obtain removal and disposal of MHST property from their home is strictly appropriate and necessary. The homeowners actions in this regard cannot, should not, and shall not be construed by MHST or others as a form of transfer or sale by MHST to the homeowners. The homeowners actions in this regard do not represent the homeowners' acceptance of the ma[redacted]als from MHST; nor do the homeowners' actions represent any desire by the homeowners to own these ma[redacted]als.  - The homeowners continue to patiently wait for MHST to provide the requested customary and usual substantiation of the invoice which MHST emailed to the homeowners. - The homeowners, with this letter, specifically rejects  MHST's request to 'Like' them on Facebook.  A signed copy of this email will be mailed by certified mail to the Mile High Synthetic Turf business address. Please do not hesitate to contact the homeowners at [redacted]Very Respectfully,[redacted] 
[redacted] 
[redacted]  **   [redacted]

I, Libby C[redacted], personally spoke to [redacted] on 2 separate occasions and he verbally accepted our quote and asked to be added onto the schedule and advised me which turf he selected.  I reached out to [redacted] a 2nd time to make him aware we were coming out to install his turf and of course,...

I announced who I was and what company I was with.  He was very happy we were coming out to install his turf.  Mile High Synthetic Turf did nothing in error and has been very professional with Mr. [redacted] the entire time.  Mile High Synthetic Turf would not "swoop" in and install turf in error.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:The statement provided by Mile High Synthetic Turf (MHST) are false and unsubstantiated. MHST's assertion seems to hinge on one employee's , Libby's, false impressions/ interpretation of our proposal clarification during the request for proposal process. She seems to be interpreting our request for pricing of a material - a different material than in MHST's initial bid- for an agreement/ contract for those materials and services. Such a misinterpretation is, if unintentional,a lack of competence; if intentional, it is dishonest. In either case, it does not represent the standard, honest, competent business practices one would expect of a business that is in the construction/ contracting field.  The facts are: - We did not order, purchase, or contract for any materials or services from Mile High Synthetic Turf.  We chose another local vendor after considering Mile High Synthetic's bid, samples, and reviewed customer experiences with others.  - Mile High Synthetic Turf has provided us none of the usual or customary documentation of such an order, purchase, or contract for materials or services.  Mile High Synthetic Turf has merely sent us an invoice.  - MHST has not responded to our repeated requests for such usual and customary documentation of such and order, purchase, or contract.  - We have specifically requested substantiation of their invoice to us for materials and services; including:             - A contract for services and materials (dated, signed/verified by us and in the typical form used by the business)             - Evidence of our acceptance of materials as delivered by MHST and Evidence of our acceptance of services as rendered by MHST (typically requested by business and given by customer after delivery/installation            - Documentation of our acceptance of MHST's offer (typically, in the form of a contract) and Documentation/Evidence of our giving MHST consideration (i.e. Payment) for the material and services offered.  In brief, this business either through incompetence or malicious attempt to supplant another contractor who won our business through their reputation, competitive pricing, reputation, and fair service   Because Mile High Synthetic Turf has not been forthcoming with substantiation of their claim - as outlined above - or had the courtesy to respond meaningfully to our legitimate requests, we believe that MHST is acting dishonestly.          'Either through erroneous or incompetent business practices or in an avaricious attempt (so called, 'swooping') to supplant the vendor who did win our business - by virtue of that other vendor's higher quality materials, more detailed response to our requests, fair pricing, good reputation, excellent service, and correct/efficient business practices; Mile High Synthetic Turf provided us materials and services which we neither chose, nor agreed to, nor purchased, nor contracted. Furthermore, by sending us an invoice, Mile High Synthetic Turf rejects standard business practice and asserts an unsubstantiated claim against us. Their claims and their invoice - similar to those claims made by Libby of MHST to the Revdex.com - are without merit and unsubstantiated by the usual and customary documentation one would expect of a competent and forthright business in their industry. Given this, we interpret their invoice as an illegitimate and dishonest attempt to obtain money from us - under their threat upon us of the inconvenience and cost of disputing such a false claim. Furthermore, Mile High Synthetic Turf has disregarded our reasonable and rightful requests for substantiation of their invoice which we promptly and respectfully submitted to MHST in writing. To our requests, MHST has responded either with silence or with restatement of the same terse, cryptic, and unsubstantiated assertions as those made by Libby to the Revdex.com. Because MHST has acted in ways so far outside of acceptable standard business practices and because MHST has acted with such disregard of our rightful and reasonable requests; we can only believe that MHST is acting intentionally improperly. To date, we have deferred reporting MHST to other agencies who regulate their industry. This was done to promote rational dialog with MHST and give MHST time to review their business practices, actions of employees, and to meaningfully respond to our request for substantiation of their invoice and to arrange removal of the materials which MHST left on our property during their trespass.  Should MHST attempt to make a financial claim, we would consider that attempted theft and take appropriate legal action. Our purpose in reporting MHST to the Revdex.com is to alert others to the either erroneously misguided poor business practices or the intentionally wrongful business practices of Mile High Synthetic Turf to attain business they had lost by fair competition.  We believe that the Revdex.com is a proper agency to review the assertions, invoice, and claims made by MHST as well as MHST's proof/documentation/ substantiation of those. We believe that the Revdex.com's comparing that of MHST to that expected of a reputable business in the industry will find Mile High Synthetic Turf at best lacking and at worst intentionally poor. We believe that such intolerable business practices are harmful to legitimate businesses as well as customers and should be discouraged.  Very Respectfully, [redacted]Complaint: [redacted]

Revdex.com:I have decided NOT to participate in Binding Arbitration to resolve my complaint with ID [redacted]. I understand that because I have decided to not pursue arbitration that Revdex.com must close my complaint. I have decided to pursue legally or via other avenues. Regards,Mile High Synthetic Turf

Mile High Synthetic Turf spoke with Mr [redacted] and he advised which turf he wanted and was told he would be put on the schedule for install.  Libby spoke with Mr [redacted] on the phone a few days prior to install and advised we were coming to install his turf.  Mile High Synthetic Turf is at no fault for installing this turf.