Paul Davis Restoration & Remodeling of Columbus

We certainly acknowledge that parts of the repairs performed at this house have required additional attention.  WE have attempted to work with the customer to resolve these issues.  The customer has been difficult to deal with throughout the entire process, delaying the timeframes given to...

us to address the areas by either not responding to emails for days or by requiring work to be scheduled on certain dates and times that are usually weeks out.  We have tried repeatedly to resolve the issues to her satisfaction and found that she sometimes has unrealistic expectations about what the finished product should be.
I will not address all the items listed, I will only say that there are not health risks in this house.
We are certainly willing to address any outstanding issues, and have been throughout the entire process.  We will not refund the amounts to the homeowner that she is requesting, as that is no where near a reasonable request.  My company is willing to work to address her concerns but understand some of the items listed are not outstanding issues. 
[redacted]

This company is giving false information.   My mortgage company NEVER inspected their work.  I, however did hire a home inspector and do have a report as to the substandard work that was done on my home as well as a list of repairs that have been repeatedly done over initially done by them. I contacted the insurance company with my report and documentation and pictures and was instructed not to give them any more money and to complete things myself. All this is documented.  I have a firm paper trial to support my claims
[redacted]

We will be sending a roofer out to inspect the roof based on our estimate and scope of work.  This inspection will happen sometime within the next 7-10 days, weather permitting.  I sounds from her complaint like Ms. [redacted] is having problems with her chimney flashing.  According...

to the estimate upon which the contract and payment was based, there was no work performed to the chimney flashing, as it would not have been damaged by wind.  The photos I reviewed showed that the chimney flashing was heavily caulked at the time of our repairs.  If it is determined the problems are coming from the chimney flashing we would not hold any liability for water infiltration.  We will inspect to make sure all the repairs called forth in the estimate were completed and are in working order.
 
Adam

I am rejecting this response because:This is
unacceptable. We spent 10K on this work, and according to the estimates we have
received we need to spend about 5k more to have the job repaired and finished.
PDR is directly responsible for the damages done to our home and the fact that
the work was not performed properly. According to them, the work is completed.
However, according to EVERY SINGLE PROFESSIONAL we have to the home to check
the work, the work is far from complete. We sought out these second
opinions to ensure that we do not have "unrealistic expectations” and that
in fact, the work is sub-par/ incomplete. We are not willing to have PDR
attempt to finish the work, as every single time they come to our home, they
claim the work is finished- only for us to come home to find half of the issues
were not addressed; the half that were addressed, are still shoddy workmanship.
The drywall contractor that we had review the job even went as far as to say
that PDR should not offer this kind of work if they are incapable of doing it
(which is clearly evidenced by our home). The drywall on our ceiling is not
even fastened properly in some areas, which is definitely a safety hazard. To
say that the home has "required additional attention" is an
understatement. PDR has been to our home to repair their initial work at
least 4 separate times.  Of course the work has to be scheduled according
to the homeowner’s schedule, that is common sense.
It is
infuriating that the owner of the company would say “My company is willing to
work to address her concerns but understand some of the items listed are not
outstanding issues”. If we, as the customers, say they are outstanding issues,
and the second opinion contractors state that they are indeed outstanding
issues, who is PDR to say that these are NOT outstanding issues?! There is no accountability
here. PDR did not finish the work that they were contracted to perform. PDR
damaged our home. PDR is directly responsible for the unfinished state that our
home is in right now. PDR should be responsible for paying the second
contractors to FINISH the work they were originally hired to do. PDR should
have never been paid in full from the start, however, they were. Since only
half of the work has been completed, the monies should be returned so that the
work can be PROPERLY completed by actual professionals.
Regards,
[redacted]

From: [redacted] 
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:40 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: Fw:paul davis for [redacted] settlement
[redacted]
-------- Original message --------
From: [redacted] 
Date:10/16/2014 8:16 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: [redacted] 
Cc: 
Subject: Fw:paul davis for [redacted] settlement 
----Forwarded message----
From: [redacted]
To: [redacted]
Sent: Mon, Dec 13, 2010 12:33 PM EST
Subject: Fw:
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: [redacted]
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Sent: Tue, July 29, 2008 8:14:15 PM
Subject: Re:
the only dollar amount given by me was in regard to the tools that were 
inadvertently disposed of in removing the items from the basement.  The worker 
assumed all the items he was removing was being disposed of and they were placed 
in the dumpster.  When we realized what had happened, the items were buried and 
not able to be retrieved.  At that point I was told to provide a list later as I 
unpacked so that those items could be figured out.  The other credits that were 
given were a direct result of what you calculated as an allowance per our 
discussion.
----- Original Message ----
From: [redacted]  [redacted]
To: [redacted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:00:46 PM
Subject: RE: 
As for our conversation, you had disputed issues and placed a monetary value on 
those items.  I have forwarded your dispute to Paul Davis as well as the 
insurance company.  If Paul Davis Restoration does not receive the balance of 
the 11,431.00 check then the insurance company has every right to demand that 
money back.  
If you claim that tools were stolen and boxes of shoes only had one shoe as well 
as computer equipment etc, you will need to produce receipts for those items if 
asked by the insurance company.  As a consumer you have the legal right to 
dispute any and all parts of any work that has been performed.  I allowed you to 
dispute those items in writing.  The total amount that was paid was on my 
calculation based on the dollar amount given by you of the items missing.
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
-----Original Message-----
[redacted] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:48 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: Re:
Per our conversation on July 23, 2008 with [redacted], Ms. [redacted] and 
myself, [redacted], there was to be a written confirmation of settlement to 
be rendered agreed upon by Paul Davis restoration, myself and Ms. [redacted].
I not only sent the dispute asked upon by me, but submitted the funds requested 
by Ms. [redacted] and agreed for the completion of what was asked for.  
It was also agreed that there would be something written and signed for my 
documents faxed to Ms. [redacted] which she nor I have received.  Would you please 
make that paperwork available for me.  Thank you, Ms. [redacted]
----- Original Message ----
From: [redacted]
To: [redacted]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:43:30 PM
Subject: 
We received $7,288.41 from [redacted] this is on behalf of Invoice # [redacted] for Paul Davis Restoration.  We also received a letter of dispute 
for the balance.  The original invoice was 12,253.41 so the balance in dispute 
is $4,965.00.  I will forward the list of things disputed to Paul Davis and the 
insurance company.  If you have any further questions, please feel free to call 
me direct.
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

This, is [redacted].   I am just finding out that Paul Davis did a whole house restoration under my insurance claim complete with plumbing,  electrical and structure repair never pulling any required permits from the city therefore by passing any inspections.   I am assuming the substandard work and shortcuts were the reason.  This adds merit to my claims and is public knowledge through the Franklin county auditor website