Peak Builders

[redacted] , 13px;">Thank you for letter in regard to the complaint from [redacted] We received a similar complaint from the customer and responded to him back in February Please see our attached response Please be advised that Peak Builders, LLC, will take any and all legal action that it deems, in its absolute and sole discretion, appropriate in connection with this matter, including, but not limited seeking damages in connection with any misrepresentations made by the customer, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter Truly, [redacted] Dear [redacted] and [redacted] : The purpose of this letter is to respond to your December 20, 2013, letter to me regarding the construction of your primary residence on [redacted] **, [redacted] in the [redacted] subdivision of [redacted] ***, Virginia (the "Project"), by Peak Builders, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company ("Peak")Looking back through my Project files, which, by the way, contain substantially more back and forth than is typical for even the most specialized custom homes (much of which included efforts on my part to educate you about the process of building your home and respond to repeated changes and confusion on your part), I am reminded that in May 25, 2012, email you warned me to "be prepared for a lot of slashing and burning" as you looked to find ways to cut your costsWhether your recent letter is simply yet another attempt to do so after the fact or is just representative of continued confusion, I find nothing that requires anything more of Peak than what was agreed to and accept by you by paying your bill at Project closing and your taking of possession Each of the issues you raise in your letter is addressed below:1) Elimination of study/sitting room on the upper floorIn your letter you take the position that there was no discussion of this between you and Peak prior to your post-framing discoveryYou also assert that the project specifications, and that the drawings to be used for the project were the ones dated October 19, 2011.ResponseYour assertion is incorrectFirst, the October 19, 2011, drawings were not the final specifications used for the the ProjectMy files include documentation that drawings and specifications dated April 19, 2012, as directed by you, were to be used for the projectEmails from you, including one dated May 14, 2012, where you insisted "The plans and specs of 4/19/are what the house has evolved to and is the plan we want," reiterate this and insist that those were the documents to be usedSecond, you and I also had multiple discussions over thisI showed you before the trusses were ever made that the room was not buildable in trusses because your architect omitted a hip in the roof drawings resulting in a corresponding valley that crossed through the proposed roomYou acknowledged this in multiple emails, including one dated May 14, 2012, wherein you included a spreadsheet called "Change Orders - 5/14/2012" showing you expected a creditI also shared truss drawings per your request on May 21, 2012, prior to their being built, which showed the room was absentMy notes there confirm the room "cannot be built in trusses." Last, but certainly not least, Peak gave you credits for this deletion in the final project account which you reviewed and approved before making final payment, closing and taking possession [See enclosed Allowance Schedule and Final Cost [redacted] Residence (the "Final Accounting"), where credits are shown on page for "delete west storage room CR for plywood floor and door" ($335.00); reduce east storage CR for plywood ($55.00); and "credit for study" ($3,680.00)]Like most of the items you raise in your letter, this is not the case of your paying something and getting nothing.2) Unfinished BasementIn your letter you allege that a basement shop, office, bathroom and general storage room were eliminated with your knowledge or approvalResponseYou are correct by asserting that these were eliminated, though you have misplaced the accountability for the issueI understood all long that you cut these items for cost savings purposesMultiple emails from both you and your architect show that this area was not to be completedSee [redacted] email to you dated July 29, 2012, where he emphasizes that " [redacted] says that the ceiling is not being finished under the kitchen..." In a September 24, 2012, email you reminded me to "be sure that all exterior walls are insulated the basement ceiling?" Based on all of these emails, I have a hard time understanding how you can now change your position and suggest that this was, in fact, something that needed to be completedAs such, on the Final Accounting Peak gave you credits for the deletion [See Final Accounting where a credit is shown on page for "delete sheetrock and finishes in shop/office/bath area" ($5,220.00); "finished basement flooring laminate ($4,200.00)]You approved the Final Accounting by making final payment, closing, and taking possession.3) Utilities Services SpecificationsIn your letter you state that it "was specified" that a gas manifold, exterior faucet manifold, electric panels and main water cut off were to be located in the basement mechanical roomYou stated that gas manifold, electric panels and main water cut off were installed in other basement areas contrary to specificationsYou claim to be "stuck" with inconvenience because Peak took and "easier" approach.ResponseAs you were aware, there was a lack of space in the original mechanical room to support the location of all these itemsThe main water cut off is located where the main water line is shown to be in the drawingsIt is not in the mechanical room, per the plansAs a practical matter, locating the main water cut off at distance from where the main lines enters the house is not best practices and can pose substantial issuesAs for the gas manifold, we already discussed this, and while I didn't agree with your reasoning, I gave you a credit at closing [See Final Accounting where a credit is shown on page for "leaving gas manifold in place" ($500.00)]As for your assertion that the placement of some utilities created a "second mechanical" room (I assume you are referring to the "Shed"), you should revisit the specifications; that room was always specified to house the water heater and electric as initially determined by your architect (and, presumable, you) (see the word "PANELS" marked on the SHED area)4) PipesIn your letter you state that Peak "eliminated" specified cast iron pipes for "all vertical stacks and horizontal runs over living space." You asserted that you are embarrassed by unpleasant water and flushing sounds.ResponseYou and I discussed this, so much so that, in an email form September 24, 2012, you asked about insulating that ceiling, and then decided against itNone of the waste pipes in the house pass through "living" spaceAll are inside interior closet walls, all of which were insulated for good measure--and as courtesy given what I sensed to be your concern for noise.5) Gas RegulatorIn your letter you assert that Peak "eliminated" the gas regulator for a future generator.ResponseYou deferred this because you did not know where or when the generator was being installedYou never once mentioned that you needed this part supplied at any point in time after you took possession of the homePeak would have gladly provided the part had we been notified of its need.6) HVACIn your letter you assert that the upstairs HVAC system installed was not authorized.ResponseI am confused by this assertionAccountings evidencing this were presented to you multiple times, and each time you reviewed them carefullyYou approved multiple progress accountings, paid pursuant to the Final Accounting, closed, and took possession I am humored by your suggestion that Peak owes you the sum of $28,200.00, and I might remind you of the additional courtesies you received in many ways in connection with the projectFor example, in the final billing for allowances, instead of charging you the 15% Administrative Fee on all increases per the contract (those totaled $28,672.68, meaning that the Administrative Fee payable to Peak should have been $4,300.90), I charged you only for the net increase after taking into account all credits (meaning that the net of the total changed was $9,and the Administrative Fee was reduced to $1,482.45)This saved you $2,Peak has bent over backwards throughout this project to satisfy you in every wayWe do not owe you anything further It is my sincere hope this letter clarifies what may simple be continued confusion about what was a complicated project for youI have done everything possible to communicate with you throughout the project as is evidenced by the literally hundreds of emails between us as well as tens of long phone conversations and meetingsAt this point, however, any further issues with respect to this matter should be directed to Peak's counsel copied below Very truly yours, [redacted] ***, President [redacted] ***, [redacted] (by regular mail with enclosures) [redacted] & [redacted] , [redacted] , [redacted] Peak Builders, LLC remains very proud of the fine home that we built for Mr [redacted] It is of the highest quality and craftsmanship, and built to the specifications that were mutually agreed upon We encourage you to look at our website under "French Stucco" for photos of this beautiful home so you may see for yourself why this complaint is so completely unfounded We find it incredibly unfortunate that Mr [redacted] is so misguided in his interpretation of the facts We truly hope that you have read our legal response to his accusations and looked at our website to see the visual truth The facts remain, we have done everything possible to ensure Mr***'s 100% satisfaction Some people cannot (or will not) be satisfied no matter what is done for them Thank You

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution to be unsatisfactory to me I do not expect to see any monetary satisfaction At this time I am satisfied knowing that my complaint is on file Regards, [redacted] ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution to be unsatisfactory to me.  I do not expect to see any monetary satisfaction.  At this time I am satisfied knowing that my complaint is on file.
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted],
Thank you for letter in regard to the complaint from [redacted]. We received a similar complaint from the customer and responded to him back in February 2014. Please see our attached response.
Please be advised that Peak Builders, LLC, will take any and all legal action that it deems, in its absolute and sole discretion, appropriate in connection with this matter, including, but not limited seeking damages in connection with any misrepresentations made by the customer, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Truly,
[redacted]
Dear [redacted] and [redacted]:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your December 20, 2013, letter to me regarding the construction of your primary residence on [redacted], [redacted] in the [redacted] subdivision of [redacted], Virginia (the "Project"), by Peak Builders, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company ("Peak"). Looking back through my Project files, which, by the way, contain substantially more back and forth than is typical for even the most specialized custom homes (much of which included efforts on my part to educate you about the process of building your home and respond to repeated changes and confusion on your part), I am reminded that in May 25, 2012, email you warned me to "be prepared for a lot of slashing and burning" as you looked to find ways to cut your costs. Whether your recent letter is simply yet another attempt to do so after the fact or is just representative of continued confusion, I find nothing that requires anything more of Peak than what was agreed to and accept by you by paying your bill at Project closing and your taking of possession.
Each of the issues you raise in your letter is addressed below:1) Elimination of study/sitting room on the upper floor. In your letter you take the position that there was no discussion of this between you and Peak prior to your post-framing discovery. You also assert that the project specifications, and that the drawings to be used for the project were the ones dated October 19, 2011.Response. Your assertion is incorrect. First, the October 19, 2011, drawings were not the final specifications used for the the Project. My files include documentation that drawings and specifications dated April 19, 2012, as directed by you, were to be used for the project. Emails from you, including one dated May 14, 2012, where you insisted "The plans and specs of 4/19/2012 are what the house has evolved to and is the plan we want," reiterate this and insist that those were the documents to be used. Second, you and I also had multiple discussions over this. I showed you before the trusses were ever made that the room was not buildable in trusses because your architect omitted a hip in the roof drawings resulting in a corresponding valley that crossed through the proposed room. You acknowledged this in multiple emails, including one dated May 14, 2012, wherein you included a spreadsheet called "Change Orders - 5/14/2012" showing you expected a credit. I also shared truss drawings per your request on May 21, 2012, prior to their being built, which showed the room was absent. My notes there confirm the room "cannot be built in trusses." Last, but certainly not least, Peak gave you credits for this deletion in the final project account which you reviewed and approved before making final payment, closing and taking possession [See enclosed Allowance Schedule and Final Cost [redacted] Residence (the "Final Accounting"), where credits are shown on page 2 for "delete west storage room CR for plywood floor and door" ($335.00); reduce east storage CR for plywood ($55.00); and "credit for study" ($3,680.00)]. Like most of the items you raise in your letter, this is not the case of your paying something and getting nothing.2) Unfinished Basement. In your letter you allege that a basement shop, office, bathroom and general storage room were eliminated with your knowledge or approval. Response. You are correct by asserting that these were eliminated, though you have misplaced the accountability for the issue. I understood all long that you cut these items for cost savings purposes. Multiple emails from both you and your architect show that this area was not to be completed. See [redacted] email to you dated July 29, 2012, where he emphasizes that "[redacted] says that the ceiling is not being finished under the kitchen..." In a September 24, 2012, email you reminded me to "be sure that all exterior walls are insulated the basement ceiling?" Based on all of these emails, I have a hard time understanding how you can now change your position and suggest that this was, in fact, something that needed to be completed. As such, on the Final Accounting Peak gave you credits for the deletion [See Final Accounting where a credit is shown on page 2 for "delete sheetrock and finishes in shop/office/bath area" ($5,220.00); "finished basement flooring laminate ($4,200.00)]. You approved the Final Accounting by making final payment, closing, and taking possession.3) Utilities Services Specifications. In your letter you state that it "was specified" that a gas manifold, exterior faucet manifold, electric panels and main water cut off were to be located in the basement mechanical room. You stated that gas manifold, electric panels and main water cut off were installed in other basement areas contrary to specifications. You claim to be "stuck" with inconvenience because Peak took and "easier" approach.Response. As you were aware, there was a lack of space in the original mechanical room to support the location of all these items. The main water cut off is located where the main water line is shown to be in the drawings. It is not in the mechanical room, per the plans. As a practical matter, locating the main water cut off at distance from where the main lines enters the house is not best practices and can pose substantial issues. As for the gas manifold, we already discussed this, and while I didn't agree with your reasoning, I gave you a credit at closing [See Final Accounting where a credit is shown on page 2 for "leaving gas manifold in place" ($500.00)]. As for your assertion that the placement of some utilities created a "second mechanical" room (I assume you are referring to the "Shed"), you should revisit the specifications; that room was always specified to house the water heater and electric as initially determined by your architect (and, presumable, you) (see the word "PANELS" marked on the SHED 015 area)4) Pipes. In your letter you state that Peak "eliminated" specified cast iron pipes for "all vertical stacks and horizontal runs over living space." You asserted that you are embarrassed by unpleasant water and flushing sounds.Response. You and I discussed this, so much so that, in an email form September 24, 2012, you asked about insulating that ceiling, and then decided against it. None of the waste pipes in the house pass through "living" space. All are inside interior closet walls, all of which were insulated for good measure--and as courtesy given what I sensed to be your concern for noise.5) Gas Regulator. In your letter you assert that Peak "eliminated" the gas regulator for a future generator.Response. You deferred this because you did not know where or when the generator was being installed. You never once mentioned that you needed this part supplied at any point in time after you took possession of the home. Peak would have gladly provided the part had we been notified of its need.6) HVAC. In your letter you assert that the upstairs HVAC system installed was not authorized.Response. I am confused by this assertion. Accountings evidencing this were presented to you multiple times, and each time you reviewed them carefully. You approved multiple progress accountings, paid pursuant to the Final Accounting, closed, and took possession.
I am humored by your suggestion that Peak owes you the sum of $28,200.00, and I might remind you of the additional courtesies you received in many ways in connection with the project. For example, in the final billing for allowances, instead of charging you the 15% Administrative Fee on all increases per the contract (those totaled $28,672.68, meaning that the Administrative Fee payable to Peak should have been $4,300.90), I charged you only for the net increase after taking into account all credits (meaning that the net of the total changed was $9,882.97 and the Administrative Fee was reduced to $1,482.45). This saved you $2,818.45. Peak has bent over backwards throughout this project to satisfy you in every way. We do not owe you anything further.
It is my sincere hope this letter clarifies what may simple be continued confusion about what was a complicated project for you. I have done everything possible to communicate with you throughout the project as is evidenced by the literally hundreds of emails between us as well as tens of long phone conversations and meetings. At this point, however, any further issues with respect to this matter should be directed to Peak's counsel copied below.
Very truly yours,
[redacted], President
[redacted], [redacted] (by regular mail with enclosures)
[redacted] & [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]
Peak Builders, LLC remains very proud of the fine home that we built for Mr. [redacted]. It is of the highest quality and craftsmanship, and built to the specifications that were mutually agreed upon. We encourage you to look at our website under "French Stucco" for photos of this beautiful home so you may see for yourself why this complaint is so completely unfounded.
We find it incredibly unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] is so misguided in his interpretation of the facts. We truly hope that you have read our legal response to his false accusations and looked at our website to see the visual truth. The facts remain, we have done everything possible to ensure Mr. [redacted]'s 100% satisfaction. Some people cannot (or will not) be satisfied no matter what is done for them.
Thank You.

Review: This complaint details contract deficiencies for my house at [redacted], constructed by [redacted] owner of Peak Construction. This was an architecturally designed and specified single family residence. The construction agreement was signed by all parties and states: “The Contractor shall furnish all equipment, tools, and materials, and perform all of the labor shown on the working drawings, dated Oct. 19, 2011, and the accompanying Specifications and Allowance Worksheet”. “this Agreement includes all labor necessary to complete the construction, including site preparation, installation of utilities, construction, paving, landscaping, grading, and walkways, together with all materials, fixtures and equipment required for such construction to provide a “turnkey” completed residence built in a good workmanlike manner in conformity with the Plans”. The final price far exceeded the contract price of $754,000. Even though there were some upgrades that were approved by the owners, the following issues were to be entirely finished as specified and agreed to by contract. It is my argument that several issues demonstrate a breach of contract. Peak Construction produced a product that is missing a room, missing mechanical features, and lesser quality materials. The result is a house that is less useful, enjoyable, inconvenient and overpriced. Specific issues are: - An entire room that was to be used as a study/sitting room on the upper floor was eliminated by the builder. There was no discussion between owner and builder prior to this discovery post-framing. This room was drawn and dimensioned on all plans and specifications. Even though the builder agreed to build “in conformity with the Plans”, when the owners returned from overseas and discovered this omission, the builder commented to the effect that “it was too hard to do”. - It was specified that a gas manifold, exterior faucet manifold, and main water cut off, were to be located in the mechanical room of the basement. The gas manifold, and main water cut off were installed in other basement areas. The water manifold was completely eliminated and a series of cut offs were installed at various locations of the basement which are very confusing and inconvenient to operate. Examining the builders location (or lack) of these systems, it is evident that it was just “easier” for him to do this. The owner is now stuck with inconvenience and lesser quality workmanship. By his actions, the builder has in effect caused another room to become a second mechanical room. This further detracts from the enjoyment and usefulness of the house. - The builder eliminated the specified cast iron pipes for “all vertical stacks and horizontal runs over living space”. Cast iron was specified in order to reduce/eliminate the sound of rushing water whenever a fixture is used. The owners must now endure the annoyance and embarrassment of these unpleasant sounds. The cost and quality of this house dictates that something like this should never be an issue. - The builder eliminated the specified gas regulator for a future generator. The owner has had that installed at his expense and requests reimbursement of $200. - The builder had a fully-ducted more expensive HVAC system installed in the upper floor. All specifications and HVAC proposals detail a ductless split system. Upon the owners return from overseas, it was discovered that the builder had installed a system costing $3000 more than specified. There was never any discussion as to this more expensive system and it was never authorized. Owner is asking to be reimbursed the $3000 that was not approved.Desired Settlement: As compensation for the poor quality and breach of contract by not constructing per plans and specs, the owners request an amount of $28,200. In addition, a face to face meeting with the contractor, [redacted], is requested for him to explain why it was "IMPOSSIBLE" for him "to build in conformity with the plans".

Business

Response:

[redacted],

Thank you for letter in regard to the complaint from [redacted]. We received a similar complaint from the customer and responded to him back in February 2014. Please see our attached response.

Please be advised that Peak Builders, LLC, will take any and all legal action that it deems, in its absolute and sole discretion, appropriate in connection with this matter, including, but not limited seeking damages in connection with any misrepresentations made by the customer, directly or indirectly, publicly or privately.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Truly,

Dear [redacted] and [redacted]:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your December 20, 2013, letter to me regarding the construction of your primary residence on [redacted] in the [redacted] subdivision of [redacted], Virginia (the "Project"), by Peak Builders, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company ("Peak"). Looking back through my Project files, which, by the way, contain substantially more back and forth than is typical for even the most specialized custom homes (much of which included efforts on my part to educate you about the process of building your home and respond to repeated changes and confusion on your part), I am reminded that in May 25, 2012, email you warned me to "be prepared for a lot of slashing and burning" as you looked to find ways to cut your costs. Whether your recent letter is simply yet another attempt to do so after the fact or is just representative of continued confusion, I find nothing that requires anything more of Peak than what was agreed to and accept by you by paying your bill at Project closing and your taking of possession.

Each of the issues you raise in your letter is addressed below:

1) Elimination of study/sitting room on the upper floor. In your letter you take the position that there was no discussion of this between you and Peak prior to your post-framing discovery. You also assert that the project specifications, and that the drawings to be used for the project were the ones dated October 19, 2011.

Response. Your assertion is incorrect. First, the October 19, 2011, drawings were not the final specifications used for the the Project. My files include documentation that drawings and specifications dated April 19, 2012, as directed by you, were to be used for the project. Emails from you, including one dated May 14, 2012, where you insisted "The plans and specs of 4/19/2012 are what the house has evolved to and is the plan we want," reiterate this and insist that those were the documents to be used. Second, you and I also had multiple discussions over this. I showed you before the trusses were ever made that the room was not buildable in trusses because your architect omitted a hip in the roof drawings resulting in a corresponding valley that crossed through the proposed room. You acknowledged this in multiple emails, including one dated May 14, 2012, wherein you included a spreadsheet called "Change Orders - 5/14/2012" showing you expected a credit. I also shared truss drawings per your request on May 21, 2012, prior to their being built, which showed the room was absent. My notes there confirm the room "cannot be built in trusses." Last, but certainly not least, Peak gave you credits for this deletion in the final project account which you reviewed and approved before making final payment, closing and taking possession [See enclosed Allowance Schedule and Final Cost [redacted] Residence (the "Final Accounting"), where credits are shown on page 2 for "delete west storage room CR for plywood floor and door" ($335.00); reduce east storage CR for plywood ($55.00); and "credit for study" ($3,680.00)]. Like most of the items you raise in your letter, this is not the case of your paying something and getting nothing.

2) Unfinished Basement. In your letter you allege that a basement shop, office, bathroom and general storage room were eliminated with your knowledge or approval.

Response. You are correct by asserting that these were eliminated, though you have misplaced the accountability for the issue. I understood all long that you cut these items for cost savings purposes. Multiple emails from both you and your architect show that this area was not to be completed. See [redacted] email to you dated July 29, 2012, where he emphasizes that "[redacted] says that the ceiling is not being finished under the kitchen..." In a September 24, 2012, email you reminded me to "be sure that all exterior walls are insulated the basement ceiling?" Based on all of these emails, I have a hard time understanding how you can now change your position and suggest that this was, in fact, something that needed to be completed. As such, on the Final Accounting Peak gave you credits for the deletion [See Final Accounting where a credit is shown on page 2 for "delete sheetrock and finishes in shop/office/bath area" ($5,220.00); "finished basement flooring laminate ($4,200.00)]. You approved the Final Accounting by making final payment, closing, and taking possession.

3) Utilities Services Specifications. In your letter you state that it "was specified" that a gas manifold, exterior faucet manifold, electric panels and main water cut off were to be located in the basement mechanical room. You stated that gas manifold, electric panels and main water cut off were installed in other basement areas contrary to specifications. You claim to be "stuck" with inconvenience because Peak took and "easier" approach.

Response. As you were aware, there was a lack of space in the original mechanical room to support the location of all these items. The main water cut off is located where the main water line is shown to be in the drawings. It is not in the mechanical room, per the plans. As a practical matter, locating the main water cut off at distance from where the main lines enters the house is not best practices and can pose substantial issues. As for the gas manifold, we already discussed this, and while I didn't agree with your reasoning, I gave you a credit at closing [See Final Accounting where a credit is shown on page 2 for "leaving gas manifold in place" ($500.00)]. As for your assertion that the placement of some utilities created a "second mechanical" room (I assume you are referring to the "Shed"), you should revisit the specifications; that room was always specified to house the water heater and electric as initially determined by your architect (and, presumable, you) (see the word "PANELS" marked on the SHED 015 area)

4) Pipes. In your letter you state that Peak "eliminated" specified cast iron pipes for "all vertical stacks and horizontal runs over living space." You asserted that you are embarrassed by unpleasant water and flushing sounds.

Response. You and I discussed this, so much so that, in an email form September 24, 2012, you asked about insulating that ceiling, and then decided against it. None of the waste pipes in the house pass through "living" space. All are inside interior closet walls, all of which were insulated for good measure--and as courtesy given what I sensed to be your concern for noise.

5) Gas Regulator. In your letter you assert that Peak "eliminated" the gas regulator for a future generator.

Response. You deferred this because you did not know where or when the generator was being installed. You never once mentioned that you needed this part supplied at any point in time after you took possession of the home. Peak would have gladly provided the part had we been notified of its need.

6) HVAC. In your letter you assert that the upstairs HVAC system installed was not authorized.

Response. I am confused by this assertion. Accountings evidencing this were presented to you multiple times, and each time you reviewed them carefully. You approved multiple progress accountings, paid pursuant to the Final Accounting, closed, and took possession.

I am humored by your suggestion that Peak owes you the sum of $28,200.00, and I might remind you of the additional courtesies you received in many ways in connection with the project. For example, in the final billing for allowances, instead of charging you the 15% Administrative Fee on all increases per the contract (those totaled $28,672.68, meaning that the Administrative Fee payable to Peak should have been $4,300.90), I charged you only for the net increase after taking into account all credits (meaning that the net of the total changed was $9,882.97 and the Administrative Fee was reduced to $1,482.45). This saved you $2,818.45. Peak has bent over backwards throughout this project to satisfy you in every way. We do not owe you anything further.

It is my sincere hope this letter clarifies what may simple be continued confusion about what was a complicated project for you. I have done everything possible to communicate with you throughout the project as is evidenced by the literally hundreds of emails between us as well as tens of long phone conversations and meetings. At this point, however, any further issues with respect to this matter should be directed to Peak's counsel copied below.

Very truly yours,

[redacted], President

[redacted] (by regular mail with enclosures)

[redacted] & [redacted]

Peak Builders, LLC remains very proud of the fine home that we built for Mr. [redacted]. It is of the highest quality and craftsmanship, and built to the specifications that were mutually agreed upon. We encourage you to look at our website under "French Stucco" for photos of this beautiful home so you may see for yourself why this complaint is so completely unfounded.

We find it incredibly unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] is so misguided in his interpretation of the facts. We truly hope that you have read our legal response to his false accusations and looked at our website to see the visual truth. The facts remain, we have done everything possible to ensure Mr. [redacted]'s 100% satisfaction. Some people cannot (or will not) be satisfied no matter what is done for them.

Thank You.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution to be unsatisfactory to me. I do not expect to see any monetary satisfaction. At this time I am satisfied knowing that my complaint is on file.

Regards,