Project Management Services

Complaint: [redacted] Dear Mr [redacted] , We reject Project Management Services response.We appreciate your time and effort in dealing with this matter Sincerely, [redacted] And [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted] Att'n ***C/O Revdex.com I am writing to request that you proceed with affixing proper language toa prior complaint to reflect the current changed circumstancesThe above cited Firm has requested that this update be made and I am doing so to accommodated that requestPer [redacted] of Revdex.com it is my understanding that your procedures allow you to indicated that the case is closed as answered Sincerely, [redacted] ***

*** *** Dispute Resolution SpecialistRevdex.com Denver/BoulderEFlorida Avenue, Ste Denver, CO Re: Complaint Response *** *** *** *** Dear Mr***: The *** hired Project Management Services
to remodel the kitchen in their home at *** *** *** *** ***. The project was done under a contract with the scope of the work detailed out. Mr*** signed the contract, and the total agreed contract price was $27,for the scope of work in the contractThe complaint the ***s filed with your office attached a sheet called “additional information” that is pages long. Project Management Services Corp (PMSC) will address the general things in that complaint, but to go line by line would mean at least a page response. Instead, PMSC will address the scope of the work, the work that was done, and the numerous reasonable attempts PMSC has made to resolve this issue with the ***sIn their June 13, letter, the ***s correctly state they initially paid $14,to PMSC, as required by the contract. There were changes to the contract at the request of the homeowners, and the revised contract amount was $20,141.38. This included credits for some of the issues in the current complaint. In April this year, PMSC and the homeowners agreed to a punch list of things to be completed. It consisted of ten items. Both homeowners signed the punch list. PMSC was prepared to do the work at no additional cost to the homeowner. They did request the homeowner sign the revised contract with the downward price adjustments before they would finish the final work involved. The homeowners refused to sign or agree to make final payment once the work was doneThey also claim in their letter that they are both disabled, at risk, and unable to deal with this type of disruption. Neither of them told PMSC or any of its subcontractors about any disability or risk. They requested that the kitchen be remodeled and they were aware of the demolition and work to be done. There was no contract provision for hotel expenses or other living costs, and no indication from them that they could not or would not remain in the home during the work. There also was no schedule for the work or a date for completion in the contract or otherwiseThe rest of this letter addresses generally the issues raised in the more than pages send to you by *** *** *** ***: CHRONOLOGY: The signed punch list was created by agreement with the homeowners around April 18, 2017. It was signed by the homeowners that day and they were given a copy. It is odd that the additional claims of damage to their home outlined in the page complaint don’t appear in the signed punch list, and they now suggest that the signed the punch list as some sort of misunderstanding. April 19, 2017, James T*** advised the homeowners by e-mail of the schedule he was putting together to address the issues in the punch list. On April 27, James T*** from PMSC e-mailed Che *** explaining the updated contract with price adjustments/credits, telling them they would return to do the additional work, and they had people “lined out” to everything that was discussed and agreed upon. MrT*** then requested the homeowners sign the updated contract. The homeowners responded claiming they were owed for additional “damages” like a hotel stay, damage to appliances, and a “badly damaged floor”. On May 18, 2017, the homeowners sent an e-mail claiming additional damages. James T*** responded that same day, explaining and addressing the hotel and floor issues. He closed by requesting a signed agreement for the punch list and amended contract, then said “I am open to reasonable suggestions”. The homeowners did not respond with anything, much less the items now listed in their Revdex.com complaint. This complaint was filed after the Company insisted on a signed contract, and was then left with no option but to file a lien on the property. It is at this point that the homeowners appear to have started the social media and news media campaign, and filed their Revdex.com complaintHOTEL STAY: The homeowners were aware of the scope of the work to be done. There is no contract term for PMSC to pay for a day hotel stay, from December 10, through January 18, 2017. The homeowners did not contact PMSC about this when they did it, and did not complain about conditions in the house. Now they are asking to have PMSC reimburse them for $4,for the cost of the hotel stayELECTRICAL WORK: The electrical work in this case was done by a subcontractor. He pulled the permits for the job, and had employees of his do the work involved. The work was all inspected by the City and County of Denver building department and none of the issues now listed in the “Additional Information” provided by the homeowners were raised previously when the agreed punch list was prepared and signed by the homeowners. All electrical issues prior to the punch list were addressed with no additional cost to the homeowner. The homeowners did not communicate any additional electrical issues after the punch list either by e-mail or directly to PMSC. Load Bearing Wall: Electrical had to be placed into an area of cinderblock wall. The electrician’s employees chipped out a channel to place the electrical in. They removed more material than they should have. In response, PMSC hired a licensed professional engineer to inspect and recommend repairs that would maintain the structural integrity of the wall. The licensed engineer provided a report that had a recommended “fix”. The homeowner agreed with the repair and it was completed to everyone’s satisfaction. At no time was the home or its occupants at risk and the home is structurally sound. The homeowners make reference to the grade of cement used in the repair to suggest that this constituted major damage to the structural integrity of the home which is an inaccurate characterizationLACK OF SUPERVISION: James T*** managed the remodel project at all times. He communicated with the homeowners. He has made every reasonable effort to accommodate the concerns of the homeowner. The complaint does not seek any specific resolution in this area, but is directed at what the homeowner perceived as a lack of supervisionHARDWOOD FLOORS: The homeowners purchased the bamboo flooring and the scope of work was to install the flooring. This was completed. Certain parts of the installation were done with agreement of the homeowner after consultation with the manufacturer. The homeowner’s complaint greatly exaggerates the flooring issues. James T*** and PMSC brought in a company to look at the floors and to recommend a resolution. That resolution was to essentially refinish the flooring to address scratches. PMSC was prepared to do that. The punch list signed by the homeowners does not include replacement of the flooring as they now claim is part of the resolution they are asking for. PMSC did not agree that the floors were extensively damaged, but rather than argue with the homeowner attempted to address this issue by hiring a company at PMSC’s cost to come in and provide a suitable fixATTIC: There is no reference to attic issues in the punch list other than to add additional insulation. The electrical work done was inspected by the City and County of Denver and passed. There were no fire hazards or open junction boxes, which would not have passed an inspectionAPPLIANCES: The homeowners returned to the home January 18, 2017. They now are claiming that the appliances were both cosmetically and functionally damaged. PMSC moved the appliances from the kitchen during the remodel. The complaint does not include the age of the appliances involved, and PMSC did not do anything with the appliances that would cause the functional damage listed in the complaint. The homeowners did not provide any information from the *** technician or any other professional to support their claim that the appliances were damaged by PMSC or its sub-contractors Water Filtration System: This system had been disconnected. PMSC did not have information about the storage requirements when disconnected, and so the tank bladder needed to be replaced. PMSC arrived for repair of this system and paid for it. The homeowner was not chargedCABINETRY: The punch list was created after the homeowners and PMSC walked through the project. The homeowners signed that punch list. Regarding the cabinets, it provides for (1) adjusting a three drawer area left of the lazy susan, (2) having a company (Repairs Unique) fix some “gouges”, (3) cut pin nails left of sink, and (4) wood colored plugs/stickers. PMSC agreed to perform this work at its cost. PMSC cannot account for the additional claims in the complaint regarding the cabinets and is not sure why those issues were not raised by the homeowners when the cabinet issues were reviewed with them and the punch list was createdSUMMARY PMSC has a large number of satisfied customers. The company attempted to resolve the homeowner’s issues in a professional manner. The company was prepared to finish the agreed upon punch list items upon receiving a signed revised contract, and had moved toward that resolution without asking that the amounts due be paid up***. PMSC provided a revised contract with price reductions and credits. The Company also made preparations to address the punch list items. All they requested was the homeowner sign an agreement with the discounted amounts so the company would have assurances they would be paid the scope of additional work requiredThroughout this process, the homeowners blamed PMSC for numerous things and the target for resolving issues kept moving. In order to illustrate, in addition to preparing the agreed upon punch list, PMSC did the following: - Hired a professional cleaning company to come in and clean the home, not once, not twice, but three times because of the homeowners’ continued complaints. The final time they arranged for the company to go through the home with the homeowner to make sure their concerns were addressed- While PMSC did not believe that it was necessary, it arranged and paid for a professional company to come and take all towels and linens in the homeowners’ house and have them professionally laundered and returned These are the essence of the customer friendly actions by PMSC that do not remotely fit with the picture the homeowners attempt to paint of the company. They have provided over pages of negative commentary, and left out the detailed efforts by PMSC to address concerns raised In the construction business, problems can happen in a project. Project Management Services Corp prides itself on customer service and makes every effort to go above and beyond to reasonably address customer complaints. Unfortunately, the homeowners want more, effectively a free kitchen remodel They minimize the reasonable efforts of PMSC by alleging the company “padded” the revised contract with extra chargesThis allegation is not accurate. You can see from a comparison of the original contract and the revised contract the changes that were made and the credits given. A major example is the allegation that the original countertop installation under the first scope of work was not fully deleted. On that original contract, the countertop installation was included at $8,250. On the revised contract, the entire line item for it was removed and you can see this reflected in the revised contract provided by the homeowners with the complaint PMSC is also concerned because despite reasonable efforts to resolve the issues with the homeowners, they have posted disparaging comments on social media about PMSC and have gone to the media as well with misinformation. All of this occurred after PMSC insisted on being paid the balance of a fair price for the work performed In short, PMSC has made reasonable efforts to resolve the homeowner’s concerns. They will have a representative contact them again to try and resolve the issues. The Company is ready to complete the punch list items agreed to so long as the homeowners agree to pay the revised contract amount for the work done. The company is not willing to pay the homeowner the sums requested, which would result in the entire scope of the work essentially being done for free

Dear Mr***: Project Management Services has attempted in good faith to reach a resolution with the homeowner. Based upon their August 7, letter it is unclear what resolution they are asking for. They now state that they are not asking for a return of the $14,initial payment they made. They also state they are not asking that the job essentially be done for free. However, the letter ends without any statement as to what they want to have happen. This makes it difficult if not impossible for the business to respond Reading their initial complaint and subsequent demand, they very clearly claim that Project Management owes them $14,245.64, after an offset reducing the current contract balance to $0. They have requested this as the resolution of the complaint. The math is simple, if they have paid $14,00, are demanding the balance due be waived, and are demanding the company pay them $14,245.64, then there is no payment on the contract and they receive the benefits of Project Management’s work without any obligation to pay, and they net $as well This is the same demand they made June 8, before filing their initial complaint Please understand that Project Management greatly appreciates the efforts of the Revdex.com to resolve this. Unfortunately, the homeowners continue to seek payment of more than the contract price and have not provided any itemized and documented “damages” that would support such a request Again, Project Management agreed to fix certain things at its cost, and the contract was also adjusted to address the cost incurred by the homeowner on the water softener and other items. That list of items to finish ("punch list") was prepared and signed by the homeowners in April The only thing the company asked was an agreement to pay the balance of the contract once the punch list items were completed The homeowner’s complaint filing with the Revdex.com was pages long. It is a laundry list of various items, most of which would have been addressed in the “punch list” process. Nowhere are there estimates to deal with alleged floor damage, no documentation of replacing the bamboo floor, or any other estimates supporting the amounts they have asked Project Management to pay. A good example is the claim that Project Management damaged their appliances. Nowhere do they identify the specific damage. Instead, they provided a single receipt from ***. That receipt is for a “Misc Sale” for $2,352.97. It is dated February 8, 2017. It is not an estimate, not a repair ticket or receipt, nothing to identify the alleged repair or replacement of an appliance or appliances. Further, appliance repairs or purchases are not likely documented with a single generic receipt for a “Misc Sale” In conclusion, Project Management is sorry that the customer in this case continues to be unhappy. The company proposed a resolution it believed was fair and the customer has rejected that offer multiple times now. Their request to forgive the balance of the contract price ($6,141.38) and pay them an additional $14,is not remotely fair or justified. Finally, Project Management does not believe it is of any further value to continue to respond to argumentative and disparaging correspondence such as the August 7, letter from the customer. The Company would appreciate clarification from the Revdex.com how long it expects this process to continue Thank you for your time

Dear Mr***: Project Management Services has attempted in good faith to reach a resolution with the homeowner. Based upon their August 7, letter it is unclear what resolution they are asking for. They now state that they are not asking for a return of the $14,initial payment they made. They also state they are not asking that the job essentially be done for free. However, the letter ends without any statement as to what they want to have happen. This makes it difficult if not impossible for the business to respond Reading their initial complaint and subsequent demand, they very clearly claim that Project Management owes them $14,245.64, after an offset reducing the current contract balance to $0. They have requested this as the resolution of the complaint. The math is simple, if they have paid $14,00, are demanding the balance due be waived, and are demanding the company pay them $14,245.64, then there is no payment on the contract and they receive the benefits of Project Management’s work without any obligation to pay, and they net $as well This is the same demand they made June 8, before filing their initial complaint Please understand that Project Management greatly appreciates the efforts of the Revdex.com to resolve this. Unfortunately, the homeowners continue to seek payment of more than the contract price and have not provided any itemized and documented “damages” that would support such a request Again, Project Management agreed to fix certain things at its cost, and the contract was also adjusted to address the cost incurred by the homeowner on the water softener and other items. That list of items to finish ("punch list") was prepared and signed by the homeowners in April The only thing the company asked was an agreement to pay the balance of the contract once the punch list items were completed The homeowner’s complaint filing with the Revdex.com was pages long. It is a laundry list of various items, most of which would have been addressed in the “punch list” process. Nowhere are there estimates to deal with alleged floor damage, no documentation of replacing the bamboo floor, or any other estimates supporting the amounts they have asked Project Management to pay. A good example is the claim that Project Management damaged their appliances. Nowhere do they identify the specific damage. Instead, they provided a single receipt from ***. That receipt is for a “Misc Sale” for $2,352.97. It is dated February 8, 2017. It is not an estimate, not a repair ticket or receipt, nothing to identify the alleged repair or replacement of an appliance or appliances. Further, appliance repairs or purchases are not likely documented with a single generic receipt for a “Misc Sale” In conclusion, Project Management is sorry that the customer in this case continues to be unhappy. The company proposed a resolution it believed was fair and the customer has rejected that offer multiple times now. Their request to forgive the balance of the contract price ($6,141.38) and pay them an additional $14,is not remotely fair or justified. Finally, Project Management does not believe it is of any further value to continue to respond to argumentative and disparaging correspondence such as the August 7, letter from the customer. The Company would appreciate clarification from the Revdex.com how long it expects this process to continueThank you for your time

*** *** Dispute Resolution SpecialistRevdex.com Denver/BoulderEFlorida Avenue, Ste Denver, CO Re: Complaint Response *** *** *** *** Dear Mr***: The *** hired Project Management Services
to remodel the kitchen in their home at *** *** *** *** ***. The project was done under a contract with the scope of the work detailed out. Mr*** signed the contract, and the total agreed contract price was $27,for the scope of work in the contractThe complaint the ***s filed with your office attached a sheet called “additional information” that is pages long. Project Management Services Corp (PMSC) will address the general things in that complaint, but to go line by line would mean at least a page response. Instead, PMSC will address the scope of the work, the work that was done, and the numerous reasonable attempts PMSC has made to resolve this issue with the ***sIn their June 13, letter, the ***s correctly state they initially paid $14,to PMSC, as required by the contract. There were changes to the contract at the request of the homeowners, and the revised contract amount was $20,141.38. This included credits for some of the issues in the current complaint. In April this year, PMSC and the homeowners agreed to a punch list of things to be completed. It consisted of ten items. Both homeowners signed the punch list. PMSC was prepared to do the work at no additional cost to the homeowner. They did request the homeowner sign the revised contract with the downward price adjustments before they would finish the final work involved. The homeowners refused to sign or agree to make final payment once the work was doneThey also claim in their letter that they are both disabled, at risk, and unable to deal with this type of disruption. Neither of them told PMSC or any of its subcontractors about any disability or risk. They requested that the kitchen be remodeled and they were aware of the demolition and work to be done. There was no contract provision for hotel expenses or other living costs, and no indication from them that they could not or would not remain in the home during the work. There also was no schedule for the work or a date for completion in the contract or otherwiseThe rest of this letter addresses generally the issues raised in the more than pages send to you by *** *** *** ***: CHRONOLOGY: The signed punch list was created by agreement with the homeowners around April 18, 2017. It was signed by the homeowners that day and they were given a copy. It is odd that the additional claims of damage to their home outlined in the page complaint don’t appear in the signed punch list, and they now suggest that the signed the punch list as some sort of misunderstanding. April 19, 2017, James T*** advised the homeowners by e-mail of the schedule he was putting together to address the issues in the punch list. On April 27, James T*** from PMSC e-mailed Che *** explaining the updated contract with price adjustments/credits, telling them they would return to do the additional work, and they had people “lined out” to everything that was discussed and agreed upon. MrT*** then requested the homeowners sign the updated contract. The homeowners responded claiming they were owed for additional “damages” like a hotel stay, damage to appliances, and a “badly damaged floor”. On May 18, 2017, the homeowners sent an e-mail claiming additional damages. James T*** responded that same day, explaining and addressing the hotel and floor issues. He closed by requesting a signed agreement for the punch list and amended contract, then said “I am open to reasonable suggestions”. The homeowners did not respond with anything, much less the items now listed in their Revdex.com complaint. This complaint was filed after the Company insisted on a signed contract, and was then left with no option but to file a lien on the property. It is at this point that the homeowners appear to have started the social media and news media campaign, and filed their Revdex.com complaintHOTEL STAY: The homeowners were aware of the scope of the work to be done. There is no contract term for PMSC to pay for a day hotel stay, from December 10, through January 18, 2017. The homeowners did not contact PMSC about this when they did it, and did not complain about conditions in the house. Now they are asking to have PMSC reimburse them for $4,for the cost of the hotel stayELECTRICAL WORK: The electrical work in this case was done by a subcontractor. He pulled the permits for the job, and had employees of his do the work involved. The work was all inspected by the City and County of Denver building department and none of the issues now listed in the “Additional Information” provided by the homeowners were raised previously when the agreed punch list was prepared and signed by the homeowners. All electrical issues prior to the punch list were addressed with no additional cost to the homeowner. The homeowners did not communicate any additional electrical issues after the punch list either by e-mail or directly to PMSC. Load Bearing Wall: Electrical had to be placed into an area of cinderblock wall. The electrician’s employees chipped out a channel to place the electrical in. They removed more material than they should have. In response, PMSC hired a licensed professional engineer to inspect and recommend repairs that would maintain the structural integrity of the wall. The licensed engineer provided a report that had a recommended “fix”. The homeowner agreed with the repair and it was completed to everyone’s satisfaction. At no time was the home or its occupants at risk and the home is structurally sound. The homeowners make reference to the grade of cement used in the repair to suggest that this constituted major damage to the structural integrity of the home which is an inaccurate characterizationLACK OF SUPERVISION: James T*** managed the remodel project at all times. He communicated with the homeowners. He has made every reasonable effort to accommodate the concerns of the homeowner. The complaint does not seek any specific resolution in this area, but is directed at what the homeowner perceived as a lack of supervisionHARDWOOD FLOORS: The homeowners purchased the bamboo flooring and the scope of work was to install the flooring. This was completed. Certain parts of the installation were done with agreement of the homeowner after consultation with the manufacturer. The homeowner’s complaint greatly exaggerates the flooring issues. James T*** and PMSC brought in a company to look at the floors and to recommend a resolution. That resolution was to essentially refinish the flooring to address scratches. PMSC was prepared to do that. The punch list signed by the homeowners does not include replacement of the flooring as they now claim is part of the resolution they are asking for. PMSC did not agree that the floors were extensively damaged, but rather than argue with the homeowner attempted to address this issue by hiring a company at PMSC’s cost to come in and provide a suitable fixATTIC: There is no reference to attic issues in the punch list other than to add additional insulation. The electrical work done was inspected by the City and County of Denver and passed. There were no fire hazards or open junction boxes, which would not have passed an inspectionAPPLIANCES: The homeowners returned to the home January 18, 2017. They now are claiming that the appliances were both cosmetically and functionally damaged. PMSC moved the appliances from the kitchen during the remodel. The complaint does not include the age of the appliances involved, and PMSC did not do anything with the appliances that would cause the functional damage listed in the complaint. The homeowners did not provide any information from the *** technician or any other professional to support their claim that the appliances were damaged by PMSC or its sub-contractors Water Filtration System: This system had been disconnected. PMSC did not have information about the storage requirements when disconnected, and so the tank bladder needed to be replaced. PMSC arrived for repair of this system and paid for it. The homeowner was not chargedCABINETRY: The punch list was created after the homeowners and PMSC walked through the project. The homeowners signed that punch list. Regarding the cabinets, it provides for (1) adjusting a three drawer area left of the lazy susan, (2) having a company (Repairs Unique) fix some “gouges”, (3) cut pin nails left of sink, and (4) wood colored plugs/stickers. PMSC agreed to perform this work at its cost. PMSC cannot account for the additional claims in the complaint regarding the cabinets and is not sure why those issues were not raised by the homeowners when the cabinet issues were reviewed with them and the punch list was createdSUMMARY PMSC has a large number of satisfied customers. The company attempted to resolve the homeowner’s issues in a professional manner. The company was prepared to finish the agreed upon punch list items upon receiving a signed revised contract, and had moved toward that resolution without asking that the amounts due be paid up***. PMSC provided a revised contract with price reductions and credits. The Company also made preparations to address the punch list items. All they requested was the homeowner sign an agreement with the discounted amounts so the company would have assurances they would be paid the scope of additional work requiredThroughout this process, the homeowners blamed PMSC for numerous things and the target for resolving issues kept moving. In order to illustrate, in addition to preparing the agreed upon punch list, PMSC did the following: - Hired a professional cleaning company to come in and clean the home, not once, not twice, but three times because of the homeowners’ continued complaints. The final time they arranged for the company to go through the home with the homeowner to make sure their concerns were addressed- While PMSC did not believe that it was necessary, it arranged and paid for a professional company to come and take all towels and linens in the homeowners’ house and have them professionally laundered and returned These are the essence of the customer friendly actions by PMSC that do not remotely fit with the picture the homeowners attempt to paint of the company. They have provided over pages of negative commentary, and left out the detailed efforts by PMSC to address concerns raised In the construction business, problems can happen in a project. Project Management Services Corp prides itself on customer service and makes every effort to go above and beyond to reasonably address customer complaints. Unfortunately, the homeowners want more, effectively a free kitchen remodel They minimize the reasonable efforts of PMSC by alleging the company “padded” the revised contract with extra chargesThis allegation is not accurate. You can see from a comparison of the original contract and the revised contract the changes that were made and the credits given. A major example is the allegation that the original countertop installation under the first scope of work was not fully deleted. On that original contract, the countertop installation was included at $8,250. On the revised contract, the entire line item for it was removed and you can see this reflected in the revised contract provided by the homeowners with the complaint PMSC is also concerned because despite reasonable efforts to resolve the issues with the homeowners, they have posted disparaging comments on social media about PMSC and have gone to the media as well with misinformation. All of this occurred after PMSC insisted on being paid the balance of a fair price for the work performed In short, PMSC has made reasonable efforts to resolve the homeowner’s concerns. They will have a representative contact them again to try and resolve the issues. The Company is ready to complete the punch list items agreed to so long as the homeowners agree to pay the revised contract amount for the work done. The company is not willing to pay the homeowner the sums requested, which would result in the entire scope of the work essentially being done for free

Complaint: ***Dear Mr***,
We reject Project Management Services response.We appreciate your time and effort in dealing with this matter
Sincerely,
*** And *** ***

Complaint: ***Att'n ***C/O Revdex.com? I am writing to request that you proceed with affixing proper language toa prior complaint to reflect the current changed circumstancesThe above cited Firm has requested that this update be made and I am doing so to accommodated that request.? Per
*** of Revdex.com it is my understanding that your procedures allow you to indicated that the case is closed as answered
Sincerely,
*** ***

Complaint: ***Dear Mr***,
We reject Project Management Services response.We appreciate your time and effort in dealing with this matter
Sincerely,
*** And *** ***

Complaint: ***
Dear Mr***:We write in response to the four page largely fictional and unresponsive account of eventsproffered by Brady T*** and Project Management Services Corp(“PMS”) in defense of ourlengthy, documented recitation of the deficient workmanship, damage and destruction they causedto our home during their recent botched attempt to remodel our KitchenUnfortunately, we mustreport that despite your efforts our many issues with PMS and T*** have not been resolvedNotsurprisingly, PMS and T*** have failed yet again to even meet with us to inspect the damagesabout which we have complained, let alone discuss their obligation to repair the damage they causedduring their incompetent remodel of our kitchenInstead of meeting with us to discuss an amicableresolution of this matter, PMS and T*** have responded with four pages of misstatements,mischaracterizations and outright fictions in an effort to obfuscate and evade their contractualobligationsThe conduct of both Brady T*** and James T*** in response to our legitimateconcerns and repeated attempts to reach an amicable resolution has been appalling and we are trulyembarrassed for them.It is our sincere wish that our correspondence with the Revdex.com along with the previouslyprovided photos documenting some of PMS and T***’ appalling workmanship will serve to warnother homeowners about the heartache, frustration and distress we experienced as a result of doingbusiness with Brady T***, James T*** and PMS.To begin with, from reading PMS' response (the Response) it appears that we have not madeourselves understoodOur concern is fairnessWe have always just wanted the kitchen installationfinished properly as agreed and for PMS to repair the damage and destruction PMS workers causedto our home and propertyThat said, it is completely unreasonable and unfair for PMS and T***to refuse to repair the damage and destruction caused by their shoddy remodelRevdex.com *** ReplyJuly 20, 2017Page Two_____________________________________________________________________________...⇄ wrote a letter to Brady T***, owner of PMS, in an attempt to have T*** and PMScomplete the work and repair the damage caused during their constructionWe spent many hourscompiling information and crafting the letter to Brady T*** (the Letter) in order to provideinformation to substantiate the damage estimates, and support and explain the issues, so MrT***could have the sufficient information to negotiate with us directlyA copy of the Letter is attachedas Exhibit AWe thought, after reading the Letter and Additional Information and seeing picturesof the work and damage, Brady T*** would come to our home, see the kitchen and damage forhimself and talk with usNeedless to say, BradyT*** completely ignored our attempt to negotiatean amicable resolution of this matter, let alone mitigate his and PMS’ damages.In their Response to our detailed complaint filed with the Revdex.com, PMS and Brady T***would have us all believe that:They could take as many months as they liked to perform our relatively small kitchenremodel, which commenced in September, 2016, and was promised to be completedby Thanksgiving and then by December 10th, at the latestThis assertion, in additionto being ludicrous, is belied by Colorado law, which provides that the time forperformance of a contract is within a reasonable amount of time, not in as much timeas the contractor wantsSpecifically, when James T***, BradyT*** and PMSrefused to respond to our repeated calls and email messages, because the work wasnot sufficiently completed to even have power restored to the house by the middle ofDecember, 2016, let alone permit us to inhabit our home, we were forced to find newtemporary accommodations and attempt to complete some of the contracted workourselves over the Holidays in the darkest cold of a Colorado winterOur house wasunfit for human habitation until about January 18, As detailed in *** attached narrative, through their incompetence and neglect PMS, BradyT*** and James T*** caused a day project to expand to eight months andit still has not been completed*** *** narrative is attached as Exhibit B.Any reasonable person would agree that eight months and counting is anunreasonable amount of time to complete what should have been a modest kitchenremodelThe homeowners, *** and *** ***, destroyed their appliances, flooring andnew kitchen *** themselvesSeriously, what motive could *** and ***possibly have for committing such damage? So they could force T*** and PMSto repair the damage? That Brady T*** would stoop so low as to blame us for hiscompany’s negligence is truly despicableJames T***’ signed list of promised repairs was some sort of final “punch list” orthat this April 18, 2017, repair list was in anyway inclusive of all the work, damage Revdex.com *** ReplyJuly 20, 2017Page Three___________________________________________________________________________...⇄ repairs that remained to be performed by PMSThis was merely a partial list ofour grievances that James T*** agreed to remedy and signed off on himselfBradyT*** and PMS would also have us believe that theywere somehow entitledto cease all work and refuse to perform the promised work under the terms of ouroriginal agreement unless we first agreed to sign a new contractWe were told tosign a new estimate and scope of work or else PMS would not have anyone comefinish our kitchen installation or repair any their damageAny reasonable personwould see this demand as a classic “shake down” for a more favorable dealWhenwe balked at this illegal demand, BradyT*** and PMS cut off contact with us andthen recorded a legally deficient and facially excessive Mechanic’s Lien against ourhomeFinally, Brady T*** and PMS would have us all believe that we are demandingmoney or damages “in excess of the entire contract amount.” This assertion iscompletely baseless and unfoundedAll we are requesting is that T*** and PMScomplete our kitchen remodel as promised and repair the damage they caused to ourhome and propertyInstead of abiding by their promises, Brady T*** and PMSseek to blame us for their breach of the contract and weasel out of their legalobligations of performance.Finally, we write to put PMS on notice that the June 19, 2017, Mechanic’s Lien it recordedagainst our property is legally deficient and facially excessiveUnder Colorado law if a Mechanic’sLien is determined to be excessive, then the party asserting such Lien forfeits all rights to the Lien,not merely the portion of the Lien found to be in excess of the amount dueMoreover, the party whois successful in defending against an excessive Lien is entitled to recover all of its attorney fees andcosts incurred in defending against the Lien claimSee CRS §38-22-and *** *** ** ***
***, LLC, P.2d 188, (ColoApp1999)More specifically, a Mechanic’s Lien may onlybe filed to the extent and amount that the work enhanced the property in valueWork that was doneimproperly and must be redone does not enhance the value of the property and any Lien must bereduced to reflect the same.Thank you for your attention to this matter.Very truly yours,*** and *** *** ***

Complaint: [redacted]Att'n [redacted]C/O Revdex.com I am writing to request that you proceed with affixing proper language toa prior complaint to reflect the current changed circumstances. The above cited Firm has requested that this update be made and I am doing so to accommodated that request. Per...

[redacted] of Revdex.com it is my understanding that your procedures allow you to indicated that the case is closed as answered.
Sincerely,
[redacted]