Patio Designers

Review: Job scope involves pouring concrete, installing decomposed granite patio and walkway, installing screen room.Decomposed granite has drainage issues, poor compaction. Sprinkler relocation for concrete slab has had multiple attempts with each result failing due to poor attention to detail. After fixing one leak, there is another leak in a line resulting in several sprinklers not functioning, a warning from city due to water runoff from the leak, and a large portion of the lawn is dead/dying.This project was due to finish in late April, and we are in now in mid-June with no end in sight. I don't have confidence that this company can fix it's own mess, and would like a full refund for DG and screen room and everybody walk away. I will start over with another company.Currently have spent 12k for DG walkway and concrete slab, and spent another 2k on HVAC issues that company has indicated it will reimburse.Overall very disappointed with the lack of attention to detail, poor workmanship and incompetence, poor communication and updates from company, and constant delays in getting the job done. What recourse do I have except to file this complaint with Revdex.com and then I either get the refund or else I have to litigate.....this project has given me headaches from the start and ruined my peace of mind for past 2 months.Desired Settlement: Refund of 7k for Decomposed Granite. Refund of 2k for HVAC issue (refrigerant leaked out when company raised the HVAC for pouring concrete slab). I will pay for the concrete slab (4k).

Business

Response:

July 7, 2014 RE: Complaint [redacted] To whom it may concern: I am responding to a complaint dated June 17, 2014. The scope of work for this project included the following: 1. Remove approximately 4 inches of soil in an area of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. 2. Install approximately 30 yards of decomposed granite to cover 2,400 sq. ft. 3. Install 13x37 concrete slab. 4. Install 10x30 screen room with non-insulated roof panels. The same day the complaint was filed I arranged a meeting with Mr. [redacted] to discuss our options regarding the completion of the project. It was evident that the decomposed granite did not perform to our expectations. We agreed to call a representative from the company that sold us the decomposed granite ([redacted]) to hear his opinion about matter. That same day, one of our employees found the leak that was preventing one of the sprinkler system lines from functioning properly. This line had been moved a couple of weeks earlier so it was rather surprising to hear about it so long after it was installed. Upon further inspection, we found a pipe that seemed to be crushed at the end of the pipe where a cap had been placed. You could still see the glue at the end of the pipe showing that there had been a cap at some point, however the cap was missing. Whether this pipe was damaged purposely or accidentally is unknown. It is also unknown why it took so long for this to be discovered by the homeowner after the initial installation. Mr. [redacted] states that he received a warning from the city for excessive water runoff onto the sidewalk. If this pipe had been left in that condition, I would expect to see it immediately and not a couple of weeks later. This issue was resolved during a second visit after the complaint was filed. The following week we had [redacted] from Hastie’s visit the jobsite. During his visit he did a visual inspection of the areas in question. He then concluded that the decomposed granite had failed to work as usual due to drainage issues and poor compaction. During the installation of the granite, half of the volume was placed and compacted, then the other half was placed and compacted once again. The granite was again compacted prior to applying a water based solidifier called Polypavement. This was a product that the Mr. [redacted] asked us to apply because he wanted the surface to be as hard as possible. According to [redacted], the granite should have been laid in increments of 1 to 1.5 inches and compacted each time. He took pictures of the bad areas and said he would talk with his boss about possible solutions. The following day [redacted] called me and suggested to replace the decomposed granite with concrete instead. He mentioned that due to the drainage issues in the lawn, even a properly compacted product would not work. Mr. [redacted] had also inquired about mixing a soil stabilizer into the decomposed granite to make it more solid. [redacted] and his boss did not think this was a good solution. Once it was determined that replacing the decomposed granite was not the best option, Mr. [redacted] decided to replace about two thirds of the area with concrete. During our initial visit to do the estimate, Mr. [redacted] was provided with an itemized cost breakdown of all the components of his project. Pouring concrete instead of installing the decomposed granite was an option that was discussed. However, the client declined to do concrete for the entire area partly because of cost. He had been given an estimate of $6 per sq. ft. for concrete and $3 per sq. ft. for the decomposed granite. Knowing that there would be an additional cost to replace the decomposed granite with concrete, Mr. [redacted] mentioned that one of his neighbors had done some concrete work with another contractor for $4 per sq. ft. As it turns out, this is an unlicensed contractor and that explains his low pricing. Unwilling to pay our rate, Mr. [redacted] mentioned that he could have this unlicensed contractor do the work and that he would expect us to refund the money for that portion of the project. At this point, I mentioned to him that we would rather not have a third party, especially an unlicensed one, involved in a project like this where there were some disputes to be resolved. Therefore, we agreed to match the $4 per sq. ft. in order to avoid having someone else getting involved with the project. As for the remaining third of the area covered with decomposed granite, Mr. [redacted] decided that he wanted this area excavated about 4 ft deep in order to replace his clay soil with good soil and plant shade trees. The other item in dispute is the installation of the screen room. I had originally given Mr. [redacted] an estimate for a screen room that is basically a sunroom without windows. He decided this was too expensive and opted to go with a basic screen room, where the screens have to be rolled on site after the frame is installed. On his contract, the screen to be used is described as “Phifer 18/14 charcoal bug screen”. The first day of installation of the screen room Mr. [redacted] noticed the roll of screen and instructed our installers not to use that screen because it looked “black”. Our installers explained that this type of screen is the industry standard and it provides excellent visibility. After speaking with Mr. [redacted] about the screen, I told him that I would research other screens to fit his needs. I contacted [redacted] and asked them to provide me with a screen with the best visibility. They suggested using Ultravue by Phifer. I purchased the screen and delivered it to the jobsite, however, Mr. [redacted] declined this screen as well. He decided he wanted aluminum screens. Our installer pointed out that aluminum screens are not recommended because they dent easy, are not easy to replace, and can cause injuries if someone rips the screen, especially to children. With that said, Mr. [redacted] still opted to go the aluminum screens. Because this screen room required the screens to be rolled on site as opposed to the premade screens that come with a standard sunroom, our installer was a subcontractor. This particular installer did not feel comfortable rolling the aluminum screen because he felt they would not perform adequately and did not want to be responsible for coming back for service calls knowing the history of the project. I then contacted several screen companies to come in and complete the screens. Some of which had the same recommendations regarding the aluminum screens; they simply would not do them. We are still waiting for one of these companies that said they would work with aluminum to come out and do an estimate. I also contacted several excavation companies to discuss the removal of the soil. Mr. [redacted] also had one source that he contacted on his own. After speaking with a couple of these sources it was clear that this would not be a good idea. The majority of the soil to be excavated sits next to a retaining wall made of block and concrete. The excavators feel that the stability of the wall will be compromised if the ground around it is excavated 3 to 4 ft. as wanted. Regarding the damage to the AC unit, Mr. [redacted] claims that our workers damaged the unit while lifting it to pour concrete around it. It should be noted that one of our workers pointed out to Mr. [redacted] that there was an unusual stain around one of the copper pipes which might be the result of a possible leak. At that point, nothing was made of this. The area was where the unit sits was graded and prepared for concrete. A couple of days after pouring the concrete, Mr. [redacted] called stating that his AC unit had stopped working and that he was having a company look at it. I arrived at the jobsite when this company was in the middle of their diagnosis. As it turns out, the unit was leaking and needed to be repaired and filled up with Freon. When they provided their cost estimate I pulled Mr. [redacted] to the side to explain to him that they were charging him much more than that repair was worth. Mr. [redacted] however, decided to have the repair done and pay almost $2,000 for it. The day the complaint was filed and we met in person, we had a conversation about this issue. I pointed out that I was not given an opportunity to resolve the issue on my own. I explained that I would not have had to pay nearly that much to have the same repair done. With that said, we agreed that I would contact my sources with the repair bill that Mr. [redacted] received and get them to do an estimate without letting them know what was actually paid for such repair. If the repair estimate would come in lower than that of the original repair, this would be the amount I would be responsible for. I must admit that this project has taken a lot longer to complete than any of us expected. And we do take full responsibility for the work performed. Not once has our company declined to service this client. I do realize how frustrating it is for a homeowner to have to deal with a situation like this. At this point this project has clearly been a financial loss to our company and all we want is to provide the best possible solution to our client so that we can close the page on his project. As noted above, we have taken all the necessary steps to insure that we handle the modifications to this project appropriately. Best Regards, [redacted] Designers, Owner