Sign in

NIA Fitness and Fashion

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about NIA Fitness and Fashion? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews NIA Fitness and Fashion

NIA Fitness and Fashion Reviews (21)

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: We are going around in circles with this issue and not getting anywhereBaker states that the dryer vent "became unattached" when it was never even attached in the first placeBasically Baker is stating that they are not responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, and in effect, not responsible for the substandard homes that they produceIf the issue is not resolved in this round of emails I will be forced to take legal action In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID#? [redacted] , and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: We are going around in circles with this issue and not getting anywhereBaker states that the dryer vent "became unattached" when it was never even attached in the first placeBasically Baker is stating that they are not responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, and in effect, not responsible for the? substandard homes that they produceIf the issue is not resolved in this round of emails I will be? forced to take legal action.? In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted] ?

At this time, I have been contacted directly by Baker Residential Limited Partnership regarding complaint ID [redacted] , however my complaint has NOT been resolved because: [Your Answer Here]I was contacted by phone by a Baker representative, he stated they would get back to meAs of this, they have not In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above Sincerely, [redacted]

[redacted] *** [redacted] [redacted] To Mid-Hudson Dispute Services: This submission constitutes Baker’s reply to the December *, 2016, response of the Homeowner in connection with the Homeowner’s October **, 2016, ComplaintCapitalized terms retain the meaning ascribed to them in Baker’s original November **, 2016, response (the “Response”) to the Homeowner’s Complaint unless otherwise defined hereinAs before, Baker provides this response solely to aid the Revdex.com in the investigation of the ComplaintThis response is based upon Baker’s current understanding of the facts and the information received thus far, and Baker reserves the right to add to, delete, or otherwise amend this response The Homeowner alleges that Baker “offered to pay for half the amount to fix the roof” but declined to provide a confirmation of that alleged offer in writingThe reason for this is simple – Baker never agreed to provide a specified amount to the Homeowner to make any repairs, and there was, thus, nothing to confirmBaker has requested that the Homeowner provide all information in connection with his purported roof repair and is willing to consider any information that the Homeowner providesBaker has also discussed with the Homeowner options to defray the Homeowner’s costs in replacing repairing the roof of the House, if he elects to do soHowever, Baker’s willingness to consider information the Homeowner provides, and to help him resolve his Complaint, is not the same as agreeing to pay a specified amount – which Baker is under no obligation to do in light of the terms of the Parties’ Agreement and Limited Warranty The Homeowner claims that a repair was scheduled for December *, 2016, from an estimate the Homeowner received and claims that Baker is obligated “for the expense to repair it.” However, as noted in Baker’s original Response, the fact is that the Homeowner signed a contract expressly providing the remedies for an alleged construction defect and that he simply does not wish to be bound by that contractThe parties’ Agreement and the Limited Warranty specifically provide that the Homeowner’s House is well outside the Limited Warranty period for repairs to flashing or the roofAs a result, Baker simply is not obligated to repair itIn this respect, the Limited Warranty is no different than any other warranty where an item breaks outside the warranty period – at the expiration of the Limited Warranty period, it is the Homeowner’s obligation to repair or pay for repairs to any alleged defects with the House, whether the alleged defects were originally part of the construction or subsequently developed While the Homeowner claims he “never received a warranty in the mail from Baker [R]esidential,” the Homeowner expressly acknowledged on several occasions that he did, in fact, receive a copy of the Limited Warranty: Prior to signing this Agreement, Purchaser has received a specimen copy of the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation that will be delivered to Purchaser at the ClosingThe warranties contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement and such manufacturers' warranties are the only warranties Purchaser will receive concerning the PremisesBy signing this Purchase Agreement, Purchaser agrees to all the terms, conditions, restrictions, disclaimers, warranties, releases, procedures, and waivers contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation, including, without limitation, the obligation to submit all claims, disputes, and controversies by Purchaser to binding arbitration rather than a courtAgreement ¶ (emphasis added)The Homeowner likewise acknowledged in the Application that he did, in fact, receive the Warranty: I/we acknowledge that I/we have received, reviewed and understand the Builder’s Limited Warranty document (PWC # 107)I/we acknowledge that the builder cannot make representations as to its Builder’s Limited Warranty that contradict or are inconsistent with the terms and conditions state in its Builder’s Limited Warranty I/we acknowledge and agree that all disputes under and relating to the Builder’s Limited Warranty shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organizationSee Application (emphasis added)Despite the Homeowner’s statements to the contrary, there is no reasonable basis to suggest that he did not receive the Limited Warranty when the Homeowner acknowledged on multiple occasions that he did receive the Limited Warranty In sum, Baker is under no legal obligation to remedy any alleged defect with the Homeowner’s House – if any actually existsThe Homeowner received the Limited Warranty, agreed to be bound by the Limited Warranty, and now seeks to renege on that agreementNonetheless, Baker remains prepared to discuss an amicable resolution with the Homeowner as a good-faith gesture to resolve the Homeowner’s Complaint if and when the Homeowner provides all documentation and relevant information regarding the alleged repairs he commissioned on or about December *,

[redacted] ? ***? ? ? ? ? [redacted] ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [redacted] To Mid-Hudson Dispute Services: ? ? ? ? ? ? This submission constitutes Baker’s reply to the December *, 2016, response of the Homeowner in connection with the Homeowner’s October **, 2016, ComplaintCapitalized terms retain the meaning ascribed to them in Baker’s original November **, 2016, response (the “Response”) to the Homeowner’s Complaint unless otherwise defined hereinAs before, Baker provides this response solely to aid the Revdex.com in the investigation of the ComplaintThis response is based upon Baker’s current understanding of the facts and the information received thus far, and Baker reserves the right to add to, delete, or otherwise amend this response? ? ? ? ? ? The Homeowner alleges that Baker “offered to pay for half the amount to fix the roof” but declined to provide a confirmation of that alleged offer in writingThe reason for this is simple ?" Baker never agreed to provide a specified amount to the Homeowner to make any repairs, and there was, thus, nothing to confirmBaker has requested that the Homeowner provide all information in connection with his purported roof repair and is willing to consider any information that the Homeowner providesBaker has also discussed with the Homeowner options to defray the Homeowner’s costs in replacing repairing the roof of the House, if he elects to do soHowever, Baker’s willingness to consider information the Homeowner provides, and to help him resolve his Complaint, is not the same as agreeing to pay a specified amount ?" which Baker is under no obligation to do in light of the terms of the Parties’ Agreement and Limited Warranty? ? ? ? ? ? The Homeowner claims that a repair was scheduled for December *, 2016, from an estimate the Homeowner received and claims that Baker is obligated “for the expense to repair it.” However, as noted in Baker’s original Response, the fact is that the Homeowner signed a contract expressly providing the remedies for an alleged construction defect and that he simply does not wish to be bound by that contractThe parties’ Agreement and the Limited Warranty specifically provide that the Homeowner’s House is well outside the Limited Warranty period for repairs to flashing or the roofAs a result, Baker simply is not obligated to repair itIn this respect, the Limited Warranty is no different than any other warranty where an item breaks outside the warranty period ?" at the expiration of the Limited Warranty period, it is the Homeowner’s obligation to repair or pay for repairs to any alleged defects with the House, whether the alleged defects were originally part of the construction or subsequently developed? ? ? ? ? ? While the Homeowner claims he “never received a warranty in the mail from Baker [R]esidential,” the Homeowner expressly acknowledged on several occasions that he did, in fact, receive a copy of the Limited Warranty: Prior to signing this Agreement, Purchaser has received a specimen copy of the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation that will be delivered to Purchaser at the ClosingThe warranties contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement and such manufacturers' warranties are the only warranties Purchaser will receive concerning the Premises By signing this Purchase Agreement, Purchaser agrees to all the terms, conditions, restrictions, disclaimers, warranties, releases, procedures, and waivers contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation, including, without limitation, the obligation to submit all claims, disputes, and controversies by Purchaser to binding arbitration rather than a courtAgreement ¶ (emphasis added)The Homeowner likewise acknowledged in the Application that he did, in fact, receive the Warranty: I/we acknowledge that I/we have received, reviewed and understand the Builder’s Limited Warranty document (PWC # 107)I/we acknowledge that the builder cannot make representations as to its Builder’s Limited Warranty that contradict or are inconsistent with the terms and conditions state in its Builder’s Limited Warranty I/we acknowledge and agree that all disputes under and relating to the Builder’s Limited Warranty shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organizationSee Application (emphasis added)Despite the Homeowner’s statements to the contrary, there is no reasonable basis to suggest that he did not receive the Limited Warranty when the Homeowner acknowledged on multiple occasions that he did receive the Limited Warranty? ? ? ? ? ? In sum, Baker is under no legal obligation to remedy any alleged defect with the Homeowner’s House ?" if any actually existsThe Homeowner received the Limited Warranty, agreed to be bound by the Limited Warranty, and now seeks to renege on that agreementNonetheless, Baker remains prepared to discuss an amicable resolution with the Homeowner as a good-faith gesture to resolve the Homeowner’s Complaint if and when the Homeowner provides all documentation and relevant information regarding the alleged repairs he commissioned on or about December *,

The warranty period for a dryer vent expired on 1013.? The maintenance for a dryer vent is the homeowners responsibility.? When the service request was received in 2015, Baker Residential informed [redacted] that the warranty for that request had expired

The customer's service request for responding to a claim that the dryer vent ductwork became unattached to the exterior dryer vent is covered by the Builders Limited Warranty during the first year of the warranty which expired on 10/**/2013. The builder is not responsible for this claim after the warranty expiration date.

Revdex.com:
I
have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I'm aware that the one year warranty has expired, however this issue was never installed correctly in the first placeA dryer vent inside the wall of the house should not be able to become disconnectedIt is apparent that the HVAC installer overlooked this detail when finishing the jobThe builder needs to show accountability for the sub-contractors they choose to perform work on their construction sites.
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I would like to settle this with Baker residential, but for them to claim I was never offered a settlement by their representative, Deveraux H*** is factually incorrect Mr H*** stated Baker Residential would be willing to pay half the cost of the repairI asked him to send me the agreement in writing and I never heard backI even called Mr H*** and left a voice message with him before the work was completedI can send you my phone records that shows the callBaker states they are willing to to do something for me but what exactly are they willing to do?
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID#? ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
We are going around in circles with this issue and not getting anywhereBaker states that the dryer vent "became unattached" when it was never even attached in the first placeBasically Baker is stating that they are not responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, and in effect, not responsible for the? substandard homes that they produceIf the issue is not resolved in this round of emails I will be? forced to take legal action.?
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***
?

At this time, I have been contacted directly by Baker Residential Limited Partnership? regarding complaint ID ***, however my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Your Answer Here]I was contacted by phone by a Baker representative, he stated they would get back to meAs of this,
they have not
?
?
?
?
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

? To Mid-Hudson Dispute Services: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This letter constitutes the response of Baker Residential of the Carolinas, LLC (“Baker LLC”) and Baker Residential Limited Partnership (“Baker LP” and, with Baker LLC, “Baker”) in connection with the Complaint filed by the Homeowner on or about October **, Baker provides this response solely to aid the New York Revdex.com (the “Revdex.com”) in the investigation of the ComplaintAll information provided herein is provided solely in cooperation with the Revdex.com’s fact finding effortThis response is based upon Baker’s current understanding of the facts and the information received thus farThus, this response, while believed to be accurate, does not constitute an affidavit or binding statement of Baker’s positionBaker reserves all defenses and the right to add to, delete, or otherwise amend this responseSummary of Argument In short, the Complaint is unwarranted because the Homeowner’s remedies are expressly governed by the Purchase Agreement entered into by and between the Homeowner and Baker LLC (the “Agreement”), the express warranty waivers contained within the Agreement, and the related Limited Warranty (defined below) provided to the Homeowner in lieu of any other express or implied warranties Baker stands behind its work and is confident that the work on the House was performed properlyThe Homeowner elected to accept the Limited Warranty in lieu of other express or implied warranties and is bound by the processes and procedures for asserting a claim under the Limited WarrantyThe Limited Warranty sets forth the time for which work for specific aspects of the House are warranted ??" including, but not limited to, the flashing on the House and the terms of the warranty for that period To date, the Homeowner has not asserted a warranty claim pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Limited WarrantyThe fact that the Homeowner has failed to comply with his obligations under the Limited Warranty does not justify a complaint to the Revdex.com or further investigation by the Revdex.comBaker has simply requested that the Homeowner abide by the procedures to which he agreedTo the extent that the Homeowner failed to file a Limited Warranty claim within the time required to do so does not make Baker’s insistence on compliance with the parties’ Agreement unfair or otherwise improperRather, Baker has clearly complied with any obligations it may have, and the Homeowner is required to do the sameFacts Baker LLC constructed the House in Thereafter, on or about December **, 2010, Baker LLC sold the House, and the improved real property on which it sits, to the Homeowner and his wife(A true and accurate copy of the North Carolina General Warranty Deed reflecting the transfer of the House, and the real property on which it sits, from Baker LLC to the Homeowner is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference.) As part of the sale of the House from Baker LLC to the Homeowner and prior to closing, the parties entered into the AgreementThe Agreement executed by both the Homeowner and Baker LLC specifically provides that: Prior to signing this Agreement, Purchaser has received a specimen copy of the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation that will be delivered to Purchaser at the ClosingThe warranties contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement and such manufacturers' warranties are the only warranties Purchaser will receive concerning the PremisesSELLER MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WHETHER ARISING UNDER STATE LAW OR THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS, MERCHANTABILITY, HABITABILITY, OR WORKMANSHIPPURCHASER SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES TO SELLER’S DISCLAIMER OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND PURCHASER WAIVES ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES BY SELLERTHE LIMITED WARRANTY AGREEMENT ISSUED BY PROFESSIONAL WARRANTY CORPORATION SHALL CONSTITUTE PURCHASER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WITH RESPECT TO ALL CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS AND ANY OTHER CONDITION OF THE PREMISESPURCHASER IS PURCHASING THE PROPERTY “AS IS, WHERE IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS.” HOWEVER, NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL MODIFY, ABROGATE, OR OTHERWISE AFFECT PURCHASER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE LIMITED WARRANTY AGREEMENT ISSUED BY PROFESSIONAL WARRANTY CORPORATION TO BE DELIVERED TO PURCHASER AT CLOSING OR UNDER ANY MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTIES FOR APPLIANCES TO BE DELIVERED TO PURCHASER AT CLOSINGThe Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation at Closing contains mandatory procedures for resolving disputes between Purchaser and Seller (including mandatory binding arbitration) and those procedures shall become effective upon Closing with respect to any and all claims, disputes, and controversies between Purchaser and SellerBy signing this Purchase Agreement, Purchaser agrees to all the terms, conditions, restrictions, disclaimers, warranties, releases, procedures, and waivers contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation, including, without limitation, the obligation to submit all claims, disputes, and controversies by Purchaser to binding arbitration rather than a courtAgreement, ¶ (emphasis in original) The Builder’s Limited Warranty administered by Professional Warranty Service Corporation (the “Limited Warranty”) and referenced in the Agreement was provided by Baker to the Homeowner in conjunction with closing on the House purchase(A sample Builder’s Limited Warranty (PWC # 107), containing substantially the same warranty information and procedures available to the Homeowner at the time the Agreement was executed, is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by reference.) The Limited Warranty specifically provides: WE make no housing merchant implied warranty of habitability or any other warranties, express or implied, in connection with the sales contract or the warrantied HOME, and all such warranties are excluded, except as expressly provided in this BUILDER'S LIMITED WARRANTYThere are no warranties which extend beyond the face of this BUILDER'S LIMITED WARRANTYLimited Warranty In addition, the Limited Warranty sets forth specific periods during which certain aspects of the construction of the House are warranted, including one (1) year for Section A Coverage, two (2) years for Section B Coverage, and ten (10) years for Section C coverage as set forth thereinSee Limited Warranty Among other things, the Limited Warranty specifically contemplates “leaks in roof or flashing” and provides for a one-year warranty due to any such leaksSee Limited Warranty In order to file a Limited Warranty claim, the Homeowner was required to provide written notice to Baker not later than thirty (30) days after expiration of the Limited Warranty period applicable to the alleged defectSee Limited Warranty Moreover, the Homeowner’s “sole remedy for resolving disputes” between himself and Baker is binding arbitration, requiring the Homeowner to submit any dispute for arbitration as set forth thereinSee Limited Warranty Nonetheless, the Homeowner asserts that, in 2016, approximately six (6) years after the House was first constructed and sold, he determined that “the flashing on the roof was improperly installed” and that there was allegedly damage to the “fascia board and the soffit” on the houseThe Homeowner claims that, before contacting Baker LLC regarding the alleged issues, he retained two separate contractors to provide quotes for the repairs and to analyze the issues with the HouseThe Homeowner did not file any Limited Warranty claim with Baker and has not filed any such claim with Baker to dateWhile Baker LLC representatives did visit the House at the Homeowner’s informal request as a courtesy, the visit was not a formal review under the Limited Warranty Thereafter, the Homeowner filed his Complaint with the Revdex.com, alleging that he does “not think it unreasonable for a roof that is less than years []old to have no damage to it,” though the Homeowner makes no mention of the Limited Warranty (and its waivers) or of the Homeowner’s maintenance program for the House, if any, as that may have contributed to the alleged issues of which he complainsThough the Homeowner claims that he “was under the impression that the builder is responsible for improperly installed roofing or any other damage because of faulty installation for seven (7) years,” the Homeowner signed an Application for Builder’s Limited Warranty Issuance on the closing date of December 20, (the “Application”), at which time the Homeowner acknowledged receipt of the terms of the Limited Warranty and that: I/we acknowledge that I/we have received, reviewed and understand the Builder’s Limited Warranty document (PWC # 107)I/we acknowledge that the builder cannot make representations as to its Builder’s Limited Warranty that contradict or are inconsistent with the terms and conditions state in its Builder’s Limited Warranty I/we acknowledge and agree that all disputes under and relating to the Builder’s Limited Warranty (including disputes on which issues shall be submitted to arbitration; alleged breach of the Builder’s Limited Warranty; and alleged violations of statutes or regulations relating to consumer protection or unfair trade practices) shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organizationSee Application(A true, accurate, and partially redacted copy of the Application is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference.) Argument The Homeowner’s Complaint is unfounded; unwarranted by the Agreement, Application, and other documents knowingly executed by the parties; and generally without basisRather, Baker has acted entirely in accordance with the contractual arrangement between the parties, while the Homeowner has attempted to circumvent his obligations under the Agreement, Application, and related documents by making an unfounded Complaint to the Revdex.comAs a result, the Complaint should be dismissed, or the Revdex.com should not otherwise pursue the matter further based upon the Homeowner’s unfounded allegations First, the Agreement between the parties and the Limited Warranty accepted by the Homeowner in conjunction with execution of the Agreement and his purchase of the House expressly govern the relationship between the parties ??" including, but not limited to, the Homeowner’s recourse for any alleged defects in the construction of the House, such as for any purportedly defective flashing installationAs set forth above, in executing the Agreement, the Homeowner expressly agreed that “[t]he warranties contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement and such manufacturers' warranties are the only warranties Purchaser will receive concerning the Premises” and that “SELLER MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS, MERCHANTABILITY, HABITABILITY, OR WORKMANSHIP.” As a result, beyond the terms of the Limited Warranty, the Homeowner agreed that there were no other warranties with respect to the construction of the House While the Homeowner claims that he “was under the impression that the builder is responsible for improperly installed roofing or any other damages because of faulty installation for seven (7) years,” the Homeowner need only look to the terms of the Limited Warranty for the very specifically delineated warranty terms related to roofing, flashing, and all other aspects of the construction of the HouseIndeed, the Homeowner “SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE[D] AND AGREE[D] TO SELLER’S DISCLAIMER OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES AND WAIVE[D] ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES BY SELLER.” Moreover, the Homeowner specifically agreed that the purchase of the House was “AS IS, WHERE IS, AND WITH ALL FAULTS.” Notwithstanding the myriad disclaimers and recitations that the Limited Warranty was the Homeowner’s sole remedy for any alleged construction defect, the Homeowner has never filed a Limited Warranty claim related to the alleged flashing defects of which he complainsWhile Baker LLC representative Deveraux H*** visited the House to review the alleged defects, the visit was provided as a courtesy to the Homeowner and was not made pursuant to any Limited Warranty claim Rather than following the clear, step-by-step procedures set forth in the Limited Warranty for asserting a claim, the Homeowner instead now attempts to subvert the parties’ agreement ??" including his own repeated acknowledgements of the limited warranties available to him and of the exclusive nature of the Limited Warranty ??" by complaining to the Revdex.comWhile the Homeowner claims that he “do[es] not think it unreasonable for a roof that is less than years []old to have no damage to it,” the Homeowner’s subjective belief as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the roof and flashing duration belies the fact that he expressly agreed in the Limited Warranty, Agreement, and Application that he accepted the terms of the Limited Warranty and of the express waiver of any other warranties ??" specifically those involving the flashing and roofingRather, as set forth in the Limited Warranty, the Homeowner agreed that the flashing would be warranted for a period of one year and otherwise agreed to the Limited Warranty periods set forth thereinSee Warranty Because the Homeowner has failed to assert a Limited Warranty claim pursuant to the Agreement, Limited Warranty, and Application, the Homeowner has no basis to complain that Baker has failed to comply with any potential obligations under the very same documentsAbsent a formal Limited Warranty claim submitted as required, Baker has no such obligations Second, even if the Homeowner had submitted a Limited Warranty claim or if the Homeowner otherwise wished to assert the existence of any dispute between the parties, the Homeowner is obligated to initiate a binding arbitration proceeding as set forth in the Limited Warranty, Agreement, and ApplicationIn fact, as described above, the Homeowner knowingly and expressly agreed that all disputes, including disputes for “alleged violations of statutes or regulations relating to consumer protection or unfair trade practices” ??" such as the Complaint, would be submitted “to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organizationAs such, the Homeowner has a clear route to pursue any recourse due to the alleged construction defectsHowever, the Homeowner has simply failed to comply with his obligations, and he should not be rewarded for doing so through further investigation of his ComplaintConclusion Baker expressly denies any liability for the allegations set forth in the Homeowner’s ComplaintThe Complaint is not well founded based upon the terms of the parties’ Agreement, Limited Warranty, and Application, and the Homeowner should not be offered an additional avenue or opportunity by which to bypass his obligations under those documentsIndeed, the Homeowner reached an express agreement governing the manner by which the matters of which he complains would be governedNeither “buyer’s remorse” nor any other reason justifies allowing the Homeowner to subvert the parties’ agreement in an attempt to obtain more favorable treatment than that to which he agreed regarding the House Because the Homeowner has failed to exhaust the numerous remedies available to him and has improperly filed the Complaint instead, the Complaint should be dismissed and should not be further investigated by the Revdex.com.?

*** *** ***
*** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
** * *** ***
*** *** ** ***
?
***? ? ? ? ? *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ***
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? *** *** *** * *** *** *** *** *** ** *** To Mid-Hudson Dispute Services: ? ? ? ? ? ? This submission constitutes Baker’s reply to the December *, 2016, response of the Homeowner in connection with the Homeowner’s October **, 2016, ComplaintCapitalized terms retain the meaning ascribed to them in Baker’s original November **, 2016, response (the “Response”) to the Homeowner’s Complaint unless otherwise defined hereinAs before, Baker provides this response solely to aid the Revdex.com in the investigation of the ComplaintThis response is based upon Baker’s current understanding of the facts and the information received thus far, and Baker reserves the right to add to, delete, or otherwise amend this response? ? ? ? ? ? The Homeowner alleges that Baker “offered to pay for half the amount to fix the roof” but declined to provide a confirmation of that alleged offer in writingThe reason for this is simple ??" Baker never agreed to provide a specified amount to the Homeowner to make any repairs, and there was, thus, nothing to confirmBaker has requested that the Homeowner provide all information in connection with his purported roof repair and is willing to consider any information that the Homeowner providesBaker has also discussed with the Homeowner options to defray the Homeowner’s costs in replacing repairing the roof of the House, if he elects to do soHowever, Baker’s willingness to consider information the Homeowner provides, and to help him resolve his Complaint, is not the same as agreeing to pay a specified amount ??" which Baker is under no obligation to do in light of the terms of the Parties’ Agreement and Limited Warranty? ? ? ? ? ? The Homeowner claims that a repair was scheduled for December *, 2016, from an estimate the Homeowner received and claims that Baker is obligated “for the expense to repair it.” However, as noted in Baker’s original Response, the fact is that the Homeowner signed a contract expressly providing the remedies for an alleged construction defect and that he simply does not wish to be bound by that contractThe parties’ Agreement and the Limited Warranty specifically provide that the Homeowner’s House is well outside the Limited Warranty period for repairs to flashing or the roofAs a result, Baker simply is not obligated to repair itIn this respect, the Limited Warranty is no different than any other warranty where an item breaks outside the warranty period ??" at the expiration of the Limited Warranty period, it is the Homeowner’s obligation to repair or pay for repairs to any alleged defects with the House, whether the alleged defects were originally part of the construction or subsequently developed? ? ? ? ? ? While the Homeowner claims he “never received a warranty in the mail from Baker [R]esidential,” the Homeowner expressly acknowledged on several occasions that he did, in fact, receive a copy of the Limited Warranty: Prior to signing this Agreement, Purchaser has received a specimen copy of the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation that will be delivered to Purchaser at the ClosingThe warranties contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement and such manufacturers' warranties are the only warranties Purchaser will receive concerning the Premises By signing this Purchase Agreement, Purchaser agrees to all the terms, conditions, restrictions, disclaimers, warranties, releases, procedures, and waivers contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation, including, without limitation, the obligation to submit all claims, disputes, and controversies by Purchaser to binding arbitration rather than a courtAgreement ¶ (emphasis added)The Homeowner likewise acknowledged in the Application that he did, in fact, receive the Warranty: I/we acknowledge that I/we have received, reviewed and understand the Builder’s Limited Warranty document (PWC # 107)I/we acknowledge that the builder cannot make representations as to its Builder’s Limited Warranty that contradict or are inconsistent with the terms and conditions state in its Builder’s Limited Warranty I/we acknowledge and agree that all disputes under and relating to the Builder’s Limited Warranty shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organizationSee Application (emphasis added)Despite the Homeowner’s statements to the contrary, there is no reasonable basis to suggest that he did not receive the Limited Warranty when the Homeowner acknowledged on multiple occasions that he did receive the Limited Warranty? ? ? ? ? ? In sum, Baker is under no legal obligation to remedy any alleged defect with the Homeowner’s House ??" if any actually existsThe Homeowner received the Limited Warranty, agreed to be bound by the Limited Warranty, and now seeks to renege on that agreementNonetheless, Baker remains prepared to discuss an amicable resolution with the Homeowner as a good-faith gesture to resolve the Homeowner’s Complaint if and when the Homeowner provides all documentation and relevant information regarding the alleged repairs he commissioned on or about December *,

The warranty period for a dryer vent expired on 10/**/13.? The maintenance for a dryer vent is the homeowners responsibility.? When the service request was received in 2015, Baker Residential informed *** *** that the warranty for that request had expired

Revdex.com:
I...

have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I'm aware that the one year warranty has expired, however this issue was never installed correctly in the first place. A dryer vent inside the wall of the house should not be able to become disconnected. It is apparent that the HVAC installer overlooked this detail when finishing the job. The builder needs to show accountability for the sub-contractors they choose to perform work on their construction sites.  
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

The warranty period for a dryer vent expired on 10/**/13.  The maintenance for a dryer vent is the homeowners responsibility.  When the service request was received in 2015, Baker Residential informed [redacted] that the warranty for that request had expired.

The customer's service request for responding to a claim that the dryer vent ductwork became unattached to the exterior dryer vent is covered by the Builders Limited Warranty during the first year of the warranty which expired on 10/**/2013.  The builder is not responsible for this claim after the warranty expiration date.

[redacted]
 
[redacted]      [redacted]
            [redacted] To Mid-Hudson Dispute Services:             This submission constitutes Baker’s reply to the December *, 2016, response of the Homeowner in connection with the Homeowner’s October **, 2016, Complaint. Capitalized terms retain the meaning ascribed to them in Baker’s original November **, 2016, response (the “Response”) to the Homeowner’s Complaint unless otherwise defined herein. As before, Baker provides this response solely to aid the Revdex.com in the investigation of the Complaint. This response is based upon Baker’s current understanding of the facts and the information received thus far, and Baker reserves the right to add to, delete, or otherwise amend this response.             The Homeowner alleges that Baker “offered to pay for half the amount to fix the roof” but declined to provide a confirmation of that alleged offer in writing. The reason for this is simple – Baker never agreed to provide a specified amount to the Homeowner to make any repairs, and there was, thus, nothing to confirm. Baker has requested that the Homeowner provide all information in connection with his purported roof repair and is willing to consider any information that the Homeowner provides. Baker has also discussed with the Homeowner options to defray the Homeowner’s costs in replacing repairing the roof of the House, if he elects to do so. However, Baker’s willingness to consider information the Homeowner provides, and to help him resolve his Complaint, is not the same as agreeing to pay a specified amount – which Baker is under no obligation to do in light of the terms of the Parties’ Agreement and Limited Warranty.             The Homeowner claims that a repair was scheduled for December *, 2016, from an estimate the Homeowner received and claims that Baker is obligated “for the expense to repair it.” However, as noted in Baker’s original Response, the fact is that the Homeowner signed a contract expressly providing the remedies for an alleged construction defect and that he simply does not wish to be bound by that contract. The parties’ Agreement and the Limited Warranty specifically provide that the Homeowner’s House is well outside the Limited Warranty period for repairs to flashing or the roof. As a result, Baker simply is not obligated to repair it. In this respect, the Limited Warranty is no different than any other warranty where an item breaks outside the warranty period – at the expiration of the Limited Warranty period, it is the Homeowner’s obligation to repair or pay for repairs to any alleged defects with the House, whether the alleged defects were originally part of the construction or subsequently developed.             While the Homeowner claims he “never received a warranty in the mail from Baker [R]esidential,” the Homeowner expressly acknowledged on several occasions that he did, in fact, receive a copy of the Limited Warranty: Prior to signing this Agreement, Purchaser has received a specimen copy of the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation that will be delivered to Purchaser at the Closing. . . . The warranties contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement and such manufacturers' warranties are the only warranties Purchaser will receive concerning the Premises. . . . . By signing this Purchase Agreement, Purchaser agrees to all the terms, conditions, restrictions, disclaimers, warranties, releases, procedures, and waivers contained in the Limited Warranty Agreement to be issued by Professional Warranty Corporation, including, without limitation, the obligation to submit all claims, disputes, and controversies by Purchaser to binding arbitration rather than a court. . . . Agreement ¶ 17 (emphasis added). The Homeowner likewise acknowledged in the Application that he did, in fact, receive the Warranty: I/we acknowledge that I/we have received, reviewed and understand the Builder’s Limited Warranty document (PWC # 107). I/we acknowledge that the builder cannot make representations as to its Builder’s Limited Warranty that contradict or are inconsistent with the terms and conditions state in its Builder’s Limited Warranty . . . . I/we acknowledge and agree that all disputes under and relating to the Builder’s Limited Warranty . . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration before an independent third party arbitration organization. See Application (emphasis added). Despite the Homeowner’s statements to the contrary, there is no reasonable basis to suggest that he did not receive the Limited Warranty when the Homeowner acknowledged on multiple occasions that he did receive the Limited Warranty.             In sum, Baker is under no legal obligation to remedy any alleged defect with the Homeowner’s House – if any actually exists. The Homeowner received the Limited Warranty, agreed to be bound by the Limited Warranty, and now seeks to renege on that agreement. Nonetheless, Baker remains prepared to discuss an amicable resolution with the Homeowner as a good-faith gesture to resolve the Homeowner’s Complaint if and when the Homeowner provides all documentation and relevant information regarding the alleged repairs he commissioned on or about December *, 2016.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

We are going around in circles with this issue and not getting anywhere. Baker states that the dryer vent "became unattached" when it was never even attached in the first place. Basically Baker is stating that they are not responsible for the actions of their subcontractors, and in effect, not responsible for the substandard homes that they produce. If the issue is not resolved in this round of emails I will be forced to take legal action. 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I would like to settle this with Baker residential, but for them to claim I was never offered a settlement by their representative, Deveraux H[redacted] is factually incorrect.  Mr H[redacted] stated Baker Residential would be willing to pay half the cost of the repair. I asked him to send me the agreement in writing and I never heard back. I even called Mr H[redacted] and left a voice message with him before the work was completed. I can send you my phone records that shows the call. Baker states they are willing to to do something for me but what exactly are they willing to do? 
 
 
 
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of NIA Fitness and Fashion

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

NIA Fitness and Fashion Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 6202 Joyner Dr, Columbus, Georgia, United States, 31907-7326

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with NIA Fitness and Fashion.



Add contact information for NIA Fitness and Fashion

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