New Look Kitchen & Bath

See Attachment To whom this may concern, I am writing regarding the complaint I opened [redacted] against New Look Kitchen and Bath operating out of [redacted] ***, VA In the last correspondence I received from the Revdex.com, it states that I have days [which ends today] to submit additional information regarding my issue Please see my attached response I will also be sending separate emails that contain photo's illustrating what this merchant "with years of experience" did to our home If you have any questions or need additional information please email or call Thank you [redacted] ###-###-####

See Attachment I am writing in response to the claim submitted by [redacted] to the Revdex.comI was on vacation the week we first received this claim and my attorney was on vacation the week afterDue to the nature of this claim, and the issues we have had with this client thus far, I believe it to be in our best interest to have our attorney assist in our response and respectfully request more timeWe will have a response to you by the end of next week Thank you Kelley *M [redacted] Vice President New Look Kitchen & Bath NRoyal Avenue [redacted] ***, VA V-###-###-#### F-###-###-#### www.newlookkitchenandbath.com kelleym***@newlookkitchenandbath.com

Master Bath1.Permitting: [redacted] s statement regarding the permitting for the work performed contained in “Master Bath I” of her “list of issues” (“List”) is factually inaccurate. While the estimate provided to [redacted] indicates New Look’s permitting responsibility, said item was modified orally, resulting from extensive conversation between the parties to this dispute. [redacted] agreed that permitting responsibility would rest with herself, due to her extensive familiarity with both the home building (indicating to New Look that she had personally presided over building seven (7) homes) and renovation process. As a direct result of said representations, New Look agreed to such a modification. Further, vesting this responsibility in the customer under such circumstances is a normative industry practice, appropriate under the circumstances. At present, New Look maintains a mixture of active job sites wherein they pull permits and job sites wherein the customer pulls permits.2. Kelley M [redacted] of New Look holds a Class A contractor's license, and through her position with New Look, provides Class A status to the business entity. Ms. M [redacted] has made no misrepresentations, affirmative or via omission, with regard to said status.3- Day to day supervision of the job sight was performed by Brandon R [redacted] as referenced. It is industry practice to have an individual of Brandon’s standing and experience to perform the various tasks which he performed. Further, [redacted] voiced no concern regarding Brandon’s work until she had requested he perform work above and beyond the contract, in an “off the clock” type fashion. Upon discovering that such an offer had in fact been made to the son of Ms. M***, [redacted] manifested a marked shift in her demeanor and attitude towards him.4.With regard to the “unknown expense for remedy work that doesn’t meet code”, [redacted] has supplied no basis to believe that any work performed is not to code standards in the List. As cited in [redacted] supplement, Mr. T [redacted] is not a licensed contractor qualified to make such assessments. Further, Ms. M [redacted] is not opposed to an independent evaluation of all work performed.5.All debris were promptly removed from the job site by New Look, consistent with industry standard.6.Work identified by [redacted] in “Demolition” was in fact not performed because of [redacted] ’s unprompted decision to apply privacy film, rather than the new window, as provided in the estimate. Outside the scope of the contract, Kevin H [redacted] from New Look1 applied the film at the request of [redacted] , who later that evening stated she had found a wrinkle therein. [redacted] Window Films, a professional installer was then sourced to professionally install the film2. New Look provided credit for the window in the amount of $200.00, and then charged for the application and the cost of the professional installation.necessity of returning with too many requests for additional outlays of funding during the remodeling process. Further, credit of $500.00 was given for this item6.10. [redacted] ’s presumptive costs cited in “Plumbing” are inaccurate, as they do not properly contain all necessary parts to install the various items referenced. A credit in the amount of $750.007 was given and appropriate fixture costs were then billed by New Look8.11,A small portion of the shower pan referenced in “Tile Work” was in fact improperly sloped. Upon discovery of the issue, New Look arranged for the tile work subcontractor to return to the site, and the issue was resolved totally within one (1) week of discovery.Powder Bath1.New Look properly and completely installed the contracted for 30x48 heat mats in the powder bath. At the time of contracting and installation, [redacted] understood the fact that said size did not cover the entirety of the floor’s area. The mat itself was installed one day, then tile and grouting the following day. During both days of installation, the homeowner’s were home and observing the installation- No issues were raised regarding the mat during this time. Upon later reconsideration, installation of a larger mat which covered the floor was requested and performed5. New Look properly performed demolition of the area to extract the mat and install the new size.All changes in the look of the floor occurred as a necessary result of the process of removing the old and installing the new mat All work performed herein was to industry standard.2. [redacted] ’s speculation with regard to both the need and cost of hiring an ‘‘alternate tradesman” is without basis or merit, as it based purely upon speculation.7. As stated above, the work alteration regarding the window was based upon the [redacted] ’s decision and all credits were provided for cost savings, where appropriate. All statements contained in the List regarding credit amounts are inaccurate, as they are based upon improper presumptions regarding New Look's pricing. For example, the $500.003 cited for the window credit is already inclusive of product cost, labor, overhead and other related items.8. Regarding “CIO”, the Jarreirs requested New Look produce a custom made mirror similar to one contained in New Look’s showroom. Requests to further modify the piece with custom molding were made. Upon producing the piece, [redacted] complained that it was unfinished, and further cost was incuired by New Look for applying finishing to the piece, which was not billed. Mounting and subsequent dismounting of the piece required an approximate outlay of $1,400.00 in labor and parts which was further unbilled. New Look further ordered molding from Kraftmaid4 in an effort to finish the piece. Upon finally determining [redacted] would not be satisfied with the mirror, credit in the amount of $250.00 was given5.9. Electrical work was not performed in the master bath, as it was unnecessary, as stated in the List. Ms. M [redacted] complied with applicable industry practice when, providing an estimate which was slightly broader than necessary. This is done so as to preclude the Kitchen, Breakfast. Simroom Area:1.As stated above, the permitting with regard to this job was orally modified by agreement of the parties.2.The “gas to LP conversion” for the new range and all other work referenced in paragraph two (2) of this section was both beyond the scope of the contract and performed by an entity other than New Look [redacted] Such work was not first handled by New Look and then sent to Kunz Appliance as alleged, but rather [redacted] sought a recommendation for an entity to perform such work from New Look, who suggested suitable providers of such in the time frame demanded- As this item was outside of the contract [redacted] no credit was necessary.3.At the time [redacted] received the estimates herein from New Look, she represented that she was unsure as to whether she would like floor work to be performed- As such, no costs were assessed in relation thereto, and no work was done.4.The removal of a dividing wall, as referenced in “Carpentry” was in fact the cause of the uneven surface due to pre-existing irregularities in the home. In response to such irregularities, all appropriate efforts were made by New Look in rectifying the uneven surface so as to provide the truest surface possible for application of kitchen cabinetry and backsplash10. The irregularities referenced in the List were of a minor nature and were reasonable given prevailing conditions. The backsplash was a $950.00 optional extra under the contract, which was not billed to [redacted] due to her dissatisfaction.5.In a further attempt to remediate the kitchen backsplash issues, the entirety was redone by subcontractor Greg Moore. [redacted] in fact stated to Mr. Moore “thank you for doing a great job on the backsplash” and “you did a great job”. Per Mr. Moore, all issues regarding grout coloring are the direct result of prevailing lighting conditions resulting from the under-cabinet lighting. This fact has been conveyed to [redacted] in person by Mr. Moore on multiple occasions while inspecting the kitchen.6.As stated above, with regard to “Plumbing/Installation”, this work was not performed by New Look and no costs were assessed in relation to this item.7.In reference to “HVAC H2” the range hood was installed per manufacturer’s instructions.8. [redacted] ’s concerns referenced in “Trim Detail” are the result of a small error on behalf of New Look’s staff. Adams Casing was originally ordered for the job site in February 201411. Rather than the Adams Casing being installed, a highly similar casing was installed. The price difference between the two casings was twenty one (21) cents per linear foot12. When this issue was brought to New Look’s attention, Ms. M [redacted] immediately inquired as to whether [redacted] would like the trim work completely replaced. [redacted] indicated that she would not like such to occur, and New Look immediately credited the difference in cost between the two items13.Generally:1. [redacted] 's “punch list”14 was fully performed by June 3, 2014. No issues regarding backsplash remediation were raised with New Look at this time. All work relating to this job site was performed in an openly hostile environment, created by [redacted] . Such hostility and unreasoned dissatisfaction was expressed through abrasive language and threats to New Look employees over the duration of the job.2.Subsequent to New Look’s full performance of the punch list, no contact was received from [redacted] for a period of approximately one (1) month. Subsequent thereto, Ms. [redacted] began filing similar allegations with the RevDex.com, Angie’s List, and other similar entities. [redacted] did not convey the concerns expressed therein to New Look prior to doing such.3. [redacted] is now disputing $44,813.00 of credit card based payments to New Look12, citing to “defective merchandise” as her basis.4. Overall workmanship and quality of the various jobs performed for [redacted] was high, and consistent with prevailing industry standards16. Further, work was performed in a timely fashion over the course of the job, only being delayed by inclement weather over the course of the winter. Time estimates provided by New Look in the various contracts were to run consecutively, rather than concurrently.Thank you for your consideration in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions which may arise.Respectfully Yours,

*** ***
AttachmentsSep
to me
***,
Thank you very much for your help in this matter
*** ***
Designer/Office Manager
***
*** ** *** ***
*** ***, Virginia ***
###-###-#### (Phone)
###-###-#### (Fax)
From: *** *** ***
Sent: Friday, September 26, 10:AM
To: ***
Subject: To *** *** Complaint # ***

Dear Revdex.com;Re: ID [redacted] and [redacted]The Countertops for the [redacted] Job are going in today. We are wrapping up the job and they are happy with their results.Re: [redacted] & [redacted] – Bathroom Remodel Job 4/14/09As soon as I received your letter I called the...

homeowners and left a message. Actually, I have left two phone messages and have not heard back. was not aware that she had issues – it was complete news to me! If she had contacted this company in 2012, I have no personal recollection of her contact. The job was contracted in April of 2009 and completed on a timely basis. A copy of the Contract Details is enclosed for you to see the actual amount spent for Tile Materials and Tile Labor.I will continue to try to contract this customer. As I said, this was news to me! I would appreciate your feedback.Respectfully,Kelley *. M[redacted]

See Attachment
I am writing in response to the claim submitted by [redacted] to the Revdex.com. I was on vacation the week we first received this claim and my attorney was on vacation the week after. Due to the nature of this claim, and the issues we have had with this client thus far, I...

believe it to be in our best interest to have our attorney assist in our response and respectfully request more time. We will have a response to you by the end of next week.
Thank you.
 
Kelley *. M[redacted]
Vice President
New Look Kitchen & Bath
322 N. Royal Avenue
[redacted], VA 22630
V-###-###-####
F-###-###-####
www.newlookkitchenandbath.com
kelleym[redacted]@newlookkitchenandbath.com

Master Bath1.Permitting: [redacted]s statement regarding the permitting for the work performed contained in “Master Bath I” of her “list of issues” (“List”) is factually inaccurate. While the estimate provided to [redacted] indicates New Look’s permitting responsibility, said item was modified orally, resulting from extensive conversation between the parties to this dispute. [redacted] agreed that permitting responsibility would rest with herself, due to her extensive familiarity with both the home building (indicating to New Look that she had personally presided over building seven (7) homes) and renovation process. As a direct result of said representations, New Look agreed to such a modification. Further, vesting this responsibility in the customer under such circumstances is a normative industry practice, appropriate under the circumstances. At present, New Look maintains a mixture of active job sites wherein they pull permits and job sites wherein the customer pulls permits.2. Kelley M[redacted] of New Look holds a Class A contractor's license, and through her position with New Look, provides Class A status to the business entity. Ms. M[redacted] has made no misrepresentations, affirmative or via omission, with regard to said status.3- Day to day supervision of the job sight was performed by Brandon R[redacted] as referenced. It is industry practice to have an individual of Brandon’s standing and experience to perform the various tasks which he performed. Further, [redacted] voiced no concern regarding Brandon’s work until she had requested he perform work above and beyond the contract, in an “off the clock” type fashion. Upon discovering that such an offer had in fact been made to the son of Ms. M[redacted] manifested a marked shift in her demeanor and attitude towards him.4.With regard to the “unknown expense for remedy work that doesn’t meet code”, [redacted] has supplied no basis to believe that any work performed is not to code standards in the List. As cited in [redacted] supplement, Mr. T[redacted] is not a licensed contractor qualified to make such assessments. Further, Ms. M[redacted] is not opposed to an independent evaluation of all work performed.5.All debris were promptly removed from the job site by New Look, consistent with industry standard.6.Work identified by [redacted] in “Demolition” was in fact not performed because of [redacted]’s unprompted decision to apply privacy film, rather than the new window, as provided in the estimate. Outside the scope of the contract, Kevin H[redacted] from New Look1 applied the film at the request of [redacted], who later that evening stated she had found a wrinkle therein. [redacted] Window Films, a professional installer was then sourced to professionally install the film2. New Look provided credit for the window in the amount of $200.00, and then charged for the application and the cost of the professional installation.necessity of returning with too many requests for additional outlays of funding during the remodeling process. Further, credit of $500.00 was given for this item6.10.[redacted]’s presumptive costs cited in “Plumbing” are inaccurate, as they do not properly contain all necessary parts to install the various items referenced. A credit in the amount of $750.007 was given and appropriate fixture costs were then billed by New Look8.11,A small portion of the shower pan referenced in “Tile Work” was in fact improperly sloped. Upon discovery of the issue, New Look arranged for the tile work subcontractor to return to the site, and the issue was resolved totally within one (1) week of discovery.Powder Bath1.New Look properly and completely installed the contracted for 30x48 heat mats in the powder bath. At the time of contracting and installation, [redacted] understood the fact that said size did not cover the entirety of the floor’s area. The mat itself was installed one day, then tile and grouting the following day. During both days of installation, the homeowner’s were home and observing the installation- No issues were raised regarding the mat during this time. Upon later reconsideration, installation of a larger mat which covered the floor was requested and performed5. New Look properly performed demolition of the area to extract the mat and install the new size.All changes in the look of the floor occurred as a necessary result of the process of removing the old and installing the new mat All work performed herein was to industry standard.2.[redacted]’s speculation with regard to both the need and cost of hiring an ‘‘alternate tradesman” is without basis or merit, as it based purely upon speculation.7. As stated above, the work alteration regarding the window was based upon the [redacted] ’s decision and all credits were provided for cost savings, where appropriate. All statements contained in the List regarding credit amounts are inaccurate, as they are based upon improper presumptions regarding New Look's pricing. For example, the $500.003 cited for the window credit is already inclusive of product cost, labor, overhead and other related items.8. Regarding “CIO”, the Jarreirs requested New Look produce a custom made mirror similar to one contained in New Look’s showroom. Requests to further modify the piece with custom molding were made. Upon producing the piece, [redacted] complained that it was unfinished, and further cost was incuired by New Look for applying finishing to the piece, which was not billed. Mounting and subsequent dismounting of the piece required an approximate outlay of $1,400.00 in labor and parts which was further unbilled. New Look further ordered molding from Kraftmaid4 in an effort to finish the piece. Upon finally determining [redacted] would not be satisfied with the mirror, credit in the amount of $250.00 was given5.9. Electrical work was not performed in the master bath, as it was unnecessary, as stated in the List. Ms. M[redacted] complied with applicable industry practice when, providing an estimate which was slightly broader than necessary. This is done so as to preclude the Kitchen, Breakfast. Simroom Area:1.As stated above, the permitting with regard to this job was orally modified by agreement of the parties.2.The “gas to LP conversion” for the new range and all other work referenced in paragraph two (2) of this section was both beyond the scope of the contract and performed by an entity other than New Look* Such work was not first handled by New Look and then sent to Kunz Appliance as alleged, but rather [redacted] sought a recommendation for an entity to perform such work from New Look, who suggested suitable providers of such in the time frame demanded- As this item was outside of the contract* no credit was necessary.3.At the time [redacted] received the estimates herein from New Look, she represented that she was unsure as to whether she would like floor work to be performed- As such, no costs were assessed in relation thereto, and no work was done.4.The removal of a dividing wall, as referenced in “Carpentry” was in fact the cause of the uneven surface due to pre-existing irregularities in the home. In response to such irregularities, all appropriate efforts were made by New Look in rectifying the uneven surface so as to provide the truest surface possible for application of kitchen cabinetry and backsplash10. The irregularities referenced in the List were of a minor nature and were reasonable given prevailing conditions. The backsplash was a $950.00 optional extra under the contract, which was not billed to [redacted] due to her dissatisfaction.5.In a further attempt to remediate the kitchen backsplash issues, the entirety was redone by subcontractor Greg Moore. [redacted] in fact stated to Mr. Moore “thank you for doing a great job on the backsplash” and “you did a great job”. Per Mr. Moore, all issues regarding grout coloring are the direct result of prevailing lighting conditions resulting from the under-cabinet lighting. This fact has been conveyed to [redacted] in person by Mr. Moore on multiple occasions while inspecting the kitchen.6.As stated above, with regard to “Plumbing/Installation”, this work was not performed by New Look and no costs were assessed in relation to this item.7.In reference to “HVAC H2” the range hood was installed per manufacturer’s instructions.8.[redacted]’s concerns referenced in “Trim Detail” are the result of a small error on behalf of New Look’s staff. Adams Casing was originally ordered for the job site in February 201411. Rather than the Adams Casing being installed, a highly similar casing was installed. The price difference between the two casings was twenty one (21) cents per linear foot12. When this issue was brought to New Look’s attention, Ms. M[redacted] immediately inquired as to whether [redacted] would like the trim work completely replaced. [redacted] indicated that she would not like such to occur, and New Look immediately credited the difference in cost between the two items13.Generally:1.[redacted]'s “punch list”14 was fully performed by June 3, 2014. No issues regarding backsplash remediation were raised with New Look at this time. All work relating to this job site was performed in an openly hostile environment, created by [redacted]. Such hostility and unreasoned dissatisfaction was expressed through abrasive language and threats to New Look employees over the duration of the job.2.Subsequent to New Look’s full performance of the punch list, no contact was received from [redacted] for a period of approximately one (1) month. Subsequent thereto, Ms. [redacted] began filing similar allegations with the Revdex.com, Angie’s List, and other similar entities. [redacted] did not convey the concerns expressed therein to New Look prior to doing such.3. [redacted] is now disputing $44,813.00 of credit card based payments to New Look12, citing to “defective merchandise” as her basis.4. Overall workmanship and quality of the various jobs performed for [redacted] was high, and consistent with prevailing industry standards16. Further, work was performed in a timely fashion over the course of the job, only being delayed by inclement weather over the course of the winter. Time estimates provided by New Look in the various contracts were to run consecutively, rather than concurrently.Thank you for your consideration in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions which may arise.Respectfully Yours,

See Attachment
To whom this may concern,
I am writing regarding the complaint I opened [redacted] against New Look Kitchen and Bath operating out of [redacted], VA.  In the last correspondence I received from the Revdex.com, it states that I have 10 days [which ends today] to submit additional information regarding my issue.
Please see my attached response.  I will also be sending separate emails that contain photo's illustrating what this merchant "with 30 years of experience" did to our home.
If you have any questions or need additional information please email or call.
Thank you.
[redacted]
###-###-####

Review: After suffering through a five month project costing us $85,000; yet riddled with what we feel is gross negligence, incompetence and misconduct; it seems appropriate to file a complaint against contractor “New Look Kitchen & Bath” at [redacted], VA [redacted].

Kelley M[redacted], VP of NLKB presents herself as the “founder” with 20-32 years of experience [depending on the day]. It is obvious from the volume and severity of problems we experienced throughout our project that this is untrue. The DPOR license lookup illustrates Delores * Y[redacted] founded this sole proprietor business awarded a Class “B” license number [redacted] on 11/30/1992, expiring on 11/30/2000. A subsequent class “A” license [redacted] issued to “New Look Kitchen and Bath” now a corporation, on 11/08/2000 set to expire 11/30/2014. When using the online license look up, no results are returned for “Kelley M[redacted]”. Considering these facts, there are already 2 lies uncovered – Kelley M[redacted] is NOT the founder and at best case this business has held a contractor’s license for 22 years, not the 32 she claims.

Our project was quoted in January 2014 and estimated to take 4-6 weeks, it has run 2 months over as a result of inadequate materials management, staffing and numerous tasks having to be corrected multiple times. All issues that could have been easily avoided by an experienced business. Here is a summary of what happened:

Misconduct/misrepresentation:

• The above statement regarding founding, years of experience. Interestingly enough, this is a family run business; a fact hidden from their customers. Office Manager is Arrissa (Kelley’s daughter) and Brandon the lead carpenter (Kelley’s son). We recently learned this detail via “a slip” on Brandon’s part. He asked if we felt lied to afterwards; seemingly remorseful that he had withheld that information.

• NLKB has posted photos of our project on [redacted] and [redacted] that are not accurate reflections of their work. The photos have been cropped to remove unfinished areas that took months of arguing to get addressed and these photos certainly don’t contain disclaimers regarding the number of attempts it took NLKB. Worst of all, there are photos of projects that my husband and I completed with zero assistance from NLKB that they are trying to pass off as “their work”. We've asked Kelley 3x to remove all pictures of our job (and our name) as we can't recommend her business after the amount and severity of issues we've had along the way; yet NKLB continues to use these unauthorized photos.

• Kelley and Brandon often referred to “the contract” as a point of reference as you should. Our contract says "[redacted]" would be installed around all doors and windows; however we later learned from an outside source that "beaded casing" was installed in our home; it's inferior in quality and lower priced. No one from NLKB ever discussed this change with us nor offered a price adjustment. After repeated inquiries on our part, Kelley finally stated that she "couldn't get [redacted] and just installed what she could get figuring we’d never know the difference.”

Gross Negligence/incompetence:

• This was a very large and expensive job, yet Kelley M[redacted] never called to ask us how things were going, what our thoughts were regarding the work etc. Not once. She only came to the job site for the initial walk through, at points where we threatened to fire her and get a lawyer, or to collect payment. Despite the fact that the “Lead Carpenter” Brandon had never run a project of this size/scope he worked unsupervised for 5 months.

• The turnover rate of employees on this job was approximately 73%. A mature business should have quality tradesmen lined up at their ready. We experienced a constant string of new employees/strangers coming in and out of our home for the duration of this project; another reason why the quality of work was so poor. Trades on site stated that Kelley was behind in paying her workers which is why there was such difficulty in getting workmen to come to the site. Ironically, we paid NLKB $85,000 from January to April.

• This business could not get the appropriate material, in the right quantity, on the right truck to save their lives. On many occasions work was held up for hours while a tradesman sat here waiting for supplies; sometimes the delay extended days because of materials issues. Several times a crew member made a special trip from [redacted] to [redacted] (86 miles round trip) to bring something as small as a faucet.

We had trouble with every job performed by almost every trade:

• Drywall – started, then delayed 2 weeks because the crew showed up at noon, took lunch and figured out late that they were short one box of screws. Not joking. The lead carpenter couldn’t figure out how to finish a housing around a ceiling fan so he left it for weeks in hopes that we would finish the work.

• Molding - crown, window/ door casing and base. Started by Brandon, held up because adequate quantities were not on the truck when needed. We were later told that there was a "Back-order" while we learned by making a call to the distributor that basically any molding in any quantity was available any day of the week at their mill. There is also the issue with the quote and swap detailed above.

We were promised “Custom size/framed bathroom mirrors" which turned out looking like a kindergarten artwork project. After weeks of arguing, NKLB took the mirror down and patched the drywall. 20-30 years of experience and couldn't pull off installing a MIRROR?

• Plumbing: Not his fault, guy sat around literally for 1/2 day because the fixtures weren’t on the truck the day he was supposed to install them.

His fault, our kitchen sink leaked enough water to fill the underside of our new cabinet due to the stress on the joint. Most importantly, and horrifying our new [redacted] range required gas to LP conversion. After NLKB "installed" it, the stove didn't work right. We called [redacted] service, and were told not to use the range because it was dangerous. We (on our own effort and dime) hired a certified [redacted] installer to fix the issue because Kelley didn’t want to “pay someone else”. The certified [redacted] installer found that NLKB had jetted the stove wrong, and used blue painters tape to hold things in place. You'd think that a KITCHEN business with this many years of experience would have installed a high end range before.

• Tile - Master shower mud set floor sloped toward the wall and not the drain. Had to be pulled out and redone. Kelley then sprang on this man that it was now his job to patch a back-splash that Brandon had installed which was unacceptable. He was unprepared to do that task that day (evidenced by the cardboard tile separators he mocked up to make the attempt.

• The kitchen back-splash originally installed by Brandon was wavy to the point it would give you vertigo. Ironically, months earlier, in this same spot Brandon removed a window and installed a new wall yet the surface was uneven at the joint by almost ½” which caused the rippling of the tile. After fighting for several days and providing Kelley with pictures to remind her of the “cause” Kelley sent “Tile guy #3” to patch it. Looked like garbage. Fought some more, some came to patch the patch. STILL looks like crap. NLKB need to rip the entire back-splash down and redo it properly; that would be the 4th redo.

• “Contract says” heated tile floor in both bathrooms. Back in February, we identified that the size mat quoted in the estimate was too small and we ordered a larger mat for our master bath (and paid the price difference). However, when the lead carpenter demo’d the guest bath, he hurriedly installed a heated mat ½ the size of the floor surface area. Puzzling because we worked with him on this same issue in the other bathroom months prior.

After much arguing, the tile floor in guest bath had to be removed and a larger mat installed. A random tile guy removed entire floor, used self-leveling compound and re-tiled leaving highs and lows all over. Kelley stated that the un-level surface “Had to be a result of someone walking on the floor” however no one was HOME when the work was done and the tile guy accepted blame stating that the issue was that Kelley demanded he used “quick set” vs. the material he advised. Tile guy later came back and PATCHED per Kelley.... Feels like cobblestone under your feet. Needs to be removed and redone; would be 3rd attempt.

There's more, but we think you get the idea.

Sincerely

[redacted] and [redacted]Desired Settlement: The remedy we seek is satisfactory completion of work contracted and already PAID for, specifically the guest room floor tile and kitchen back-splash which were left in unacceptable condition. We also seek a refund of $42,500 to compensate us for the unnecessary 2 month extension of the project, misrepresentation of business/experience, the hazardous situation caused by improper conversion of a gas to LP range, quote and swap materials issue with the molding, numerous problems/delays and re-dos of work, , the emotional duress experienced, loss of use.

Business

Response:

See Attachment

I am writing in response to the claim submitted by [redacted] to the Revdex.com. I was on vacation the week we first received this claim and my attorney was on vacation the week after. Due to the nature of this claim, and the issues we have had with this client thus far, I believe it to be in our best interest to have our attorney assist in our response and respectfully request more time. We will have a response to you by the end of next week.

Thank you.

Kelley *. M[redacted]

Vice President

New Look Kitchen & Bath

322 N. Royal Avenue

[redacted], VA 22630

V-###-###-####

F-###-###-####

www.newlookkitchenandbath.com

kelleym[redacted]@newlookkitchenandbath.com

Business

Response:

Master Bath1.Permitting: [redacted]s statement regarding the permitting for the work performed contained in “Master Bath I” of her “list of issues” (“List”) is factually inaccurate. While the estimate provided to [redacted] indicates New Look’s permitting responsibility, said item was modified orally, resulting from extensive conversation between the parties to this dispute. [redacted] agreed that permitting responsibility would rest with herself, due to her extensive familiarity with both the home building (indicating to New Look that she had personally presided over building seven (7) homes) and renovation process. As a direct result of said representations, New Look agreed to such a modification. Further, vesting this responsibility in the customer under such circumstances is a normative industry practice, appropriate under the circumstances. At present, New Look maintains a mixture of active job sites wherein they pull permits and job sites wherein the customer pulls permits.2. Kelley M[redacted] of New Look holds a Class A contractor's license, and through her position with New Look, provides Class A status to the business entity. Ms. M[redacted] has made no misrepresentations, affirmative or via omission, with regard to said status.3- Day to day supervision of the job sight was performed by Brandon R[redacted] as referenced. It is industry practice to have an individual of Brandon’s standing and experience to perform the various tasks which he performed. Further, [redacted] voiced no concern regarding Brandon’s work until she had requested he perform work above and beyond the contract, in an “off the clock” type fashion. Upon discovering that such an offer had in fact been made to the son of Ms. M[redacted] manifested a marked shift in her demeanor and attitude towards him.4.With regard to the “unknown expense for remedy work that doesn’t meet code”, [redacted] has supplied no basis to believe that any work performed is not to code standards in the List. As cited in [redacted] supplement, Mr. T[redacted] is not a licensed contractor qualified to make such assessments. Further, Ms. M[redacted] is not opposed to an independent evaluation of all work performed.5.All debris were promptly removed from the job site by New Look, consistent with industry standard.6.Work identified by [redacted] in “Demolition” was in fact not performed because of [redacted]’s unprompted decision to apply privacy film, rather than the new window, as provided in the estimate. Outside the scope of the contract, Kevin H[redacted] from New Look1 applied the film at the request of [redacted], who later that evening stated she had found a wrinkle therein. [redacted] Window Films, a professional installer was then sourced to professionally install the film2. New Look provided credit for the window in the amount of $200.00, and then charged for the application and the cost of the professional installation.necessity of returning with too many requests for additional outlays of funding during the remodeling process. Further, credit of $500.00 was given for this item6.10.[redacted]’s presumptive costs cited in “Plumbing” are inaccurate, as they do not properly contain all necessary parts to install the various items referenced. A credit in the amount of $750.007 was given and appropriate fixture costs were then billed by New Look8.11,A small portion of the shower pan referenced in “Tile Work” was in fact improperly sloped. Upon discovery of the issue, New Look arranged for the tile work subcontractor to return to the site, and the issue was resolved totally within one (1) week of discovery.Powder Bath1.New Look properly and completely installed the contracted for 30x48 heat mats in the powder bath. At the time of contracting and installation, [redacted] understood the fact that said size did not cover the entirety of the floor’s area. The mat itself was installed one day, then tile and grouting the following day. During both days of installation, the homeowner’s were home and observing the installation- No issues were raised regarding the mat during this time. Upon later reconsideration, installation of a larger mat which covered the floor was requested and performed5. New Look properly performed demolition of the area to extract the mat and install the new size.All changes in the look of the floor occurred as a necessary result of the process of removing the old and installing the new mat All work performed herein was to industry standard.2.[redacted]’s speculation with regard to both the need and cost of hiring an ‘‘alternate tradesman” is without basis or merit, as it based purely upon speculation.7. As stated above, the work alteration regarding the window was based upon the [redacted] ’s decision and all credits were provided for cost savings, where appropriate. All statements contained in the List regarding credit amounts are inaccurate, as they are based upon improper presumptions regarding New Look's pricing. For example, the $500.003 cited for the window credit is already inclusive of product cost, labor, overhead and other related items.8. Regarding “CIO”, the Jarreirs requested New Look produce a custom made mirror similar to one contained in New Look’s showroom. Requests to further modify the piece with custom molding were made. Upon producing the piece, [redacted] complained that it was unfinished, and further cost was incuired by New Look for applying finishing to the piece, which was not billed. Mounting and subsequent dismounting of the piece required an approximate outlay of $1,400.00 in labor and parts which was further unbilled. New Look further ordered molding from Kraftmaid4 in an effort to finish the piece. Upon finally determining [redacted] would not be satisfied with the mirror, credit in the amount of $250.00 was given5.9. Electrical work was not performed in the master bath, as it was unnecessary, as stated in the List. Ms. M[redacted] complied with applicable industry practice when, providing an estimate which was slightly broader than necessary. This is done so as to preclude the Kitchen, Breakfast. Simroom Area:1.As stated above, the permitting with regard to this job was orally modified by agreement of the parties.2.The “gas to LP conversion” for the new range and all other work referenced in paragraph two (2) of this section was both beyond the scope of the contract and performed by an entity other than New Look* Such work was not first handled by New Look and then sent to Kunz Appliance as alleged, but rather [redacted] sought a recommendation for an entity to perform such work from New Look, who suggested suitable providers of such in the time frame demanded- As this item was outside of the contract* no credit was necessary.3.At the time [redacted] received the estimates herein from New Look, she represented that she was unsure as to whether she would like floor work to be performed- As such, no costs were assessed in relation thereto, and no work was done.4.The removal of a dividing wall, as referenced in “Carpentry” was in fact the cause of the uneven surface due to pre-existing irregularities in the home. In response to such irregularities, all appropriate efforts were made by New Look in rectifying the uneven surface so as to provide the truest surface possible for application of kitchen cabinetry and backsplash10. The irregularities referenced in the List were of a minor nature and were reasonable given prevailing conditions. The backsplash was a $950.00 optional extra under the contract, which was not billed to [redacted] due to her dissatisfaction.5.In a further attempt to remediate the kitchen backsplash issues, the entirety was redone by subcontractor Greg Moore. [redacted] in fact stated to Mr. Moore “thank you for doing a great job on the backsplash” and “you did a great job”. Per Mr. Moore, all issues regarding grout coloring are the direct result of prevailing lighting conditions resulting from the under-cabinet lighting. This fact has been conveyed to [redacted] in person by Mr. Moore on multiple occasions while inspecting the kitchen.6.As stated above, with regard to “Plumbing/Installation”, this work was not performed by New Look and no costs were assessed in relation to this item.7.In reference to “HVAC H2” the range hood was installed per manufacturer’s instructions.8.[redacted]’s concerns referenced in “Trim Detail” are the result of a small error on behalf of New Look’s staff. Adams Casing was originally ordered for the job site in February 201411. Rather than the Adams Casing being installed, a highly similar casing was installed. The price difference between the two casings was twenty one (21) cents per linear foot12. When this issue was brought to New Look’s attention, Ms. M[redacted] immediately inquired as to whether [redacted] would like the trim work completely replaced. [redacted] indicated that she would not like such to occur, and New Look immediately credited the difference in cost between the two items13.Generally:1.[redacted]'s “punch list”14 was fully performed by June 3, 2014. No issues regarding backsplash remediation were raised with New Look at this time. All work relating to this job site was performed in an openly hostile environment, created by [redacted]. Such hostility and unreasoned dissatisfaction was expressed through abrasive language and threats to New Look employees over the duration of the job.2.Subsequent to New Look’s full performance of the punch list, no contact was received from [redacted] for a period of approximately one (1) month. Subsequent thereto, Ms. [redacted] began filing similar allegations with the Revdex.com, Angie’s List, and other similar entities. [redacted] did not convey the concerns expressed therein to New Look prior to doing such.3. [redacted] is now disputing $44,813.00 of credit card based payments to New Look12, citing to “defective merchandise” as her basis.4. Overall workmanship and quality of the various jobs performed for [redacted] was high, and consistent with prevailing industry standards16. Further, work was performed in a timely fashion over the course of the job, only being delayed by inclement weather over the course of the winter. Time estimates provided by New Look in the various contracts were to run consecutively, rather than concurrently.Thank you for your consideration in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me regarding any questions which may arise.Respectfully Yours,

Consumer

Response:

See Attachment

To whom this may concern,

I am writing regarding the complaint I opened [redacted] against New Look Kitchen and Bath operating out of [redacted], VA. In the last correspondence I received from the Revdex.com, it states that I have 10 days [which ends today] to submit additional information regarding my issue.

Please see my attached response. I will also be sending separate emails that contain photo's illustrating what this merchant "with 30 years of experience" did to our home.

If you have any questions or need additional information please email or call.

Thank you.

###-###-####

Consumer

Response:

[redacted]

AttachmentsSep 26

to me

[redacted],

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Designer/Office Manager

[redacted], Virginia [redacted]

###-###-#### (Phone)

###-###-#### (Fax)

From: [redacted]

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:11 AM

To: [redacted]

Subject: To [redacted] Complaint # [redacted]