Sign in

Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs

Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs Reviews (5)

We sent a check today in the amount of $(of the total $833.70)We dropped the ballWe apologized for number of emails she had to send and for the amount of time that it took for us to get the check outIf she chooses to work with us again, we have offered significantly reduced pricing-Dave
***, Owner, MrHandyman

I have visited the site with Ms*** on the evening of Wednesday, January and reviewed her concernsAfter discussing the situation with my Technician who did the work, I followed up the following day with an email (copy attached) offering different options to resolveWe sent photos
separately immediately afterOur Customer Service Representative Renae called and left a voicemail notifying her that email was sentIt took several days for her to receive the email since she lost access to her phone according to what she told our RenaeRenae read her the email over the phone on Tuesday, February In addition I called and left a voicemail last Friday, February 9, offering to resolve issuesAs of this writing I have not heard back.In short, we have done work for several days, including repairing a leak and damage caused by the leak.We are open to correcting the problems or making fair concessions to our invoiceBut we need to resolve with Ms*** or someone else with authority to resolveWe are not willing to just refund 100% of our invoices.Sincerely,David H***, PresidentMrHandyman of SW Minneapolis and SW Suburbs

I went to the home and met with their son. I offered to come back and fix what I viewed as very fixable items. They didn't want us to come back, so I offered to refund about half of their payment. Their son did not accept my offer at that time, but called our office later in the day. I assumed that...

he had discussed this with his parents. I explained to their son that most professional painters do not use tape when cutting in. I rarely use tape. Also, the deck was stained with Sherwin-Williams Super Deck stain, which is an excellent product and is water-based. It requires a clean, dry surface, which the deck was in that it was a very hot sunny day. We are still willing to come back and address any problems that have arisen.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.According to Sherman Williams paint the deck has to try at least 24 hours.The stucco was splashed with paint.Also painter missed large sections .Celling was included in kitchen painting and was sitting right there on the counter.It was a very unacceptable paint job.It was not discussed and agreed by me.I believe our son was in to much of a hurry to get back to his own job. "BUT" I also wish to have a handyman that is well experienced not the same one.He was very rude on top of everything else.  [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/08) */
Monday, June 8, 2015
The facts and timeline from our perspective:
On April 16, 2015 one of our technicians did an estimate for work to be done at this customer's home. It included repair of an entry door unit and some exterior painting and...

scraping of upper dormers. The total estimate for work to be done based on what we could see at the time was $665-860.
On our estimate form, it clearly says estimate multiple times. It further says, "this is an estimate, not a firm bid. Mr. Handyman performs all work on a Time and Materials basis. Client will be charged only for the hours worked and materials provided. Hourly rate: $88 per hour + materials + van travel fee".
On May 8, 2015 two of our technicians worked at the customer's home for 9.5 hours each, a total of 19 hours. No payment was made at that time. The total invoice for that day was $1059.00. We had already agreed to reduced labor rates for this customer.
On May 20, 2015 two of our technicians completed the work at the customer's home and worked for 4.5 and 5 hours, a total of 9.5 additional hours. The total invoice for that day was $663.00. (subsequently adjusted to $573 due to billing error) At the end of this day, the invoice for this day was paid by the customer in the amount of $663.00.
On each of these days in which we worked at the customer's home, they signed one of our work order/contracts that clearly states the time worked, work done, materials used, amount being charged, and the rates and terms of our service, which includes our hourly rate.
Most of our estimates are very accurate. There are, however, times that it just takes longer than we anticipated, or there are unforeseen problems that are encountered as the work progresses. In cases where our estimate is not accurate, we do our best to communicate well with the customer that it will take longer and cost more. The customer always has the option of stopping work at any time.
In this case, our technician communicated that the work was taking longer, and that the repair on the entry door was more extensive, as the interior rot was much more extensive than what was visible before pulling it apart. Also, the customer was informed that the paint for the exterior dormers (paint provided by customer) was not covering in one coat, and would require a second coat. He agreed to this additional work saying that he wanted the job done right.
We attempted to communicate the changes/additions to the customer, and our technician was confident that the customer understood these changes. But even if there was a slight breakdown in communication, or customer misunderstanding, it was quite obvious that there was significant additional work being done and additional time involved. Unfortunately, in this case we believe the customer assumed wrongly that our estimate was a firm bid, and that all the additional work requested would be included.
At the end of the second day of work, May 20, 2015, there were some unfortunate assumptions and possible miscommunication on both sides. Our technician, on completion of that day's work, presented the customer with the invoice for that day, assuming that the previous invoice (for the work on May 8) had been already paid, which it had not been. Unfortunately, the customer thought that this amount from the second day were the total charges ($663.00) and that we would not be charging them for the first 19 hours of work. Our technician never would have communicated that this was the total amount for entire job, though he did think that the previous invoice had been paid and that this was the remaining balance to be paid. He was well aware of the total charges as he had been on site while all the work was being done and had filled out all the paperwork himself.
So, due to these unfortunate assumptions the customer was surprised when we informed them on Thursday June 4, 2015 that there was an unpaid invoice for work at their home. We tried to explain the situation from our perspective. Under the circumstances, and considering the possible miscommunication, we would have been glad to make some sort of reasonable concession, but the conversation never got that far. They got increasingly angry and repeatedly made it very clear that they were not going to pay us anything further for the work done at their home and that they thought we were trying to "scam" them. It was only at that point in the conversation that we mentioned that one option we pursue for customers who refuse to pay their bill is for us to file a lien against their home. At that point they continued to express their negative views of us quite adamantly, had no interest in listening, and we felt it best at that time to discontinue the conversation. The conversation was not reasonable or productive.
After this difficult conversation, we immediately prepared a letter offering some financial concessions as an attempt to settle this matter quickly, fairly and amicably. We value our customers and our reputation both locally and nationally, and always do our best to work with unhappy customers to settle these matters. This letter/offer was mailed (and emailed) in good faith on Friday June 5, 2015.
It is still very much our hope that this matter can be settled fairly and amicably. We look forward to further communication from the customer with a response to our offer.
Copies of documents in attached PDF
1. March 16, 2015 Estimate form
2. May 8, 2015 work order
3. May 20, 2015 work order
4. Copy of check for $663.00
5. Customer statement with reduction offer
6. Letter to customer June 5, 2015, 2 pages
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/06/08) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
The case was settled to mutual satisfaction

Check fields!

Write a review of Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 2355 Louisiana Ave N Ste 1, Golden Valley, Minnesota, United States, 55427-3646

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs.



Add contact information for Mr. Handyman of SW Minneapolis & SW Suburbs

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated