Please see attached for an additional document.Response to Complaint from [redacted] regarding contract with PropLink Divine LLC:On May 28, [redacted] acted as an agent on behalf of his one daughter who entered into a contract with PropLink LLC for renovation of a house to be rented as College HousingThe first payment of $was received on June 2, we went to [redacted] to order materials and the work on the property began on Wednesday June 3, The estimated date of completion was days from the start of the work which would have been July 3, 2015.Discovered Dishonesty: [redacted] implies regarding the building permits however [redacted] and I (Charles B [redacted] the representative for PropLink LLC discussed that we would not be pulling the permits for this project which is why permit charges were not included in the original estimateThis decision was made to keep costs low for [redacted] & his daughterI admit this was a poor business decision on behalf of the companyOnce the electrician heard mention that a Certificate of Occupancy was going to be obtained to rent the property we realized the permits had to be pulled which [redacted] was immediately made aware of and this, it caused a two week delay in the work being done***' other daughter (name on the property) took it upon herself to call City Hall and had a most disrespectful & demeaning conversation with the electrical inspector's supervisor which almost resulted in the permits being further delayed which would have put an end to the entire project, due to some miss interrupted conversation/information regarding the delayThe dishonesty that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint is unfounded as [redacted] was a part of the dishonesty in the original decision to not pull the permits.Second form of Dishonesty: [redacted] mentions in his complaint that Proplink never produced Insurance Bond InformationThe request for the insurance information was made at the tail end of this business relationship as the Insurance had been obtained and proof was available however [redacted] terminated the business relationship prior to obtaining the proof(Note yes we should have provided it when the contract was signed we were changing insurance companies to better protect are customers and us.) A copy is enclosed for proof.Discovered Unprofessional [redacted] refers to the contract stating that the contractor is responsible for all permits however as mentioned above we originally decided not to pull permits to keep costs lowThe permit for the plumbing was required however because extensive plumbing work had to be done and it was work that was not foreseen in the initial walk through when we created the contractOnly fixture replacements were contracted to be doneWhen the sub contracted plumber came to do his walk through he determined that there were several plumbing issues and that none of the plumbing in the house was up to code and a plumbing permit would be required to do the work as when the inspectors come and seen the new plumbing work they will look to see if a plumbing permit was obtained if not the Certificate of Occupancy would be in jeopardy one againIt was never stated by the company or its representative that the contract was under bidThe $that was paid out was for the plumber that was going to do the extensive unforeseen plumbing work that needed to be done and the plumbing permit that had to be obtainedIt was sated right on the check that was paid to the company.The contract reads that the work would begin when 50% of the agreed labor charge was paid, that payment was received on the evening of 6/2/and the work began on 6/3/as stated aboveThe contract also states that when 50% of the work was completed another 25% of labor charge would be paid, this payment of 25% was paid on 6/17/For a total of 75% of the labor paid per the contract [redacted] would never have paid if the work was not completeSo the unprofessionalism claim he is making is also unfoundedHe states he only got 25% of the labor but the contract does not stipulate a date that payments were to be made the contract stipulates that payments are made when work is completeIf 50% of the work was not done why would he make the payment?The disrespect [redacted] states he felt was never expressed to the contractor directly or an apology for his feeling disrespected would have been madeThe sub-contractors (external contractors: Plumber & Electrician) that still need to be paid after the termination of the contract with PropLink LLC is for work that had already been rendered and some was to be rendered at a later dates.There were never two contractors that walked off the jobPropLink terminated one [redacted] sub-contractor's agreement as he had low attendance a poor attitude and his workmanship/ quality of work was no goodThe other [redacted] sub-contractor was still working with PropLink, [redacted] coerced him to sign on with him to complete the project along with [redacted] sub-contractor that PropLink terminatedThe company believes that this was all a pout so that sub-contractors could get more money by backing out of the agreement with Proplink with only 22% of the work needing to be done at this point [redacted] gave me hours to remove my equipment/tools from the property by time I got there about hours later my equipment/tools where already removed by the one [redacted] (subcontractor) placed in my trailer and all his equipment/tools were in the house and the door lock had been changedAs I was leaving the property [redacted] walked up and right in my face ask the [redacted] [redacted] sub-contractor, do you have the key to the new lockLater on that night about pm I came back to check my trailer and notice ***, [redacted] (daughter], [redacted] (sub-contractor), [redacted] (sub-contractor) signing contract/agreement alleging to complete the work [redacted] has filed this complaint with the Revdex.com however there are some complaints to be filed against him as well as the sub-contractors[redacted] paid for the plumbing permit as he stated in his complaint however as per the contract PropLink paid for the building and electrical permit( [redacted] even went as far as to highlight in yellow highlighter this section of the contract and stated to me ( [redacted] that he was holding PropLink to the contract that was signed and refused to reimburse the company for what was paid for the permits.) Once the contract with PropLink and [redacted] were terminated by him the permit (building) was pulled by PropLink[redacted] went down to City Hall told them that he paid for the permits so that he could get the permits amended to remove Proplink from the permits and add another contractor which can only be clone by the person that paid for the permitsA representative from the City of Rochester called PropLink and requested proof that PropLink or a representative of PropLink paid for the permitsThis proof was furnishedProplink will be in further contact with City of Rochester on this matterNote that Proplink has spoken with the electrician and plumbing sub-contractor and have agreed to let them finish the work both the electrical/plumbing work about 90% doneElectrician has informed me that he has spoken with [redacted] and that [redacted] said he was going to pay him the balance of $left of agreement with Propllnk to complete the workThe pluming sub has been paid in full per the agreement with Proplink as money was paid as stated above.There are receipts for all financial transactions including payments to the sub-contractors that required signatures upon receipt of all payments per agreement all subsThere is also a detailed accounting record of how the money received was dispersed for the labor of this projectThere was never any dishonesty or shady dealings on behalf of PropLink LLCThank you.Regards,Charles B GMProplink Divine LLC
Please see attached for an additional document.Response to Complaint from [redacted] regarding contract with PropLink Divine LLC:On May 28, 2015 [redacted] acted as an agent on behalf of his one daughter who entered into a contract with PropLink LLC for renovation of a house to be rented as...
College Housing. The first payment of $5000 was received on June 2, 2015 we went to [redacted] to order materials and the work on the property began on Wednesday June 3, 2015. The estimated date of completion was 30 days from the start of the work which would have been July 3, 2015.Discovered Dishonesty: [redacted] implies regarding the building permits however [redacted] and I (Charles B[redacted] the representative for PropLink LLC discussed that we would not be pulling the permits for this project which is why permit charges were not included in the original estimate. This decision was made to keep costs low for [redacted] & his daughter. I admit this was a poor business decision on behalf of the company. Once the electrician heard mention that a Certificate of Occupancy was going to be obtained to rent the property we realized the permits had to be pulled which [redacted] was immediately made aware of and this, it caused a two week delay in the work being done. [redacted]' other daughter (name on the property) took it upon herself to call City Hall and had a most disrespectful & demeaning conversation with the electrical inspector's supervisor which almost resulted in the permits being further delayed which would have put an end to the entire project, due to some miss interrupted conversation/information regarding the delay. The dishonesty that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint is unfounded as [redacted] was a part of the dishonesty in the original decision to not pull the permits.Second form of Dishonesty: [redacted] mentions in his complaint that Proplink never produced Insurance Bond Information. The request for the insurance information was made at the tail end of this business relationship as the Insurance had been obtained and proof was available however [redacted] terminated the business relationship prior to obtaining the proof. (Note yes we should have provided it when the contract was signed we were changing insurance companies to better protect are customers and us.) A copy is enclosed for proof.Discovered Unprofessional Behavior: [redacted] refers to the contract stating that the contractor is responsible for all permits however as mentioned above we originally decided not to pull permits to keep costs low. The permit for the plumbing was required however because extensive plumbing work had to be done and it was work that was not foreseen in the initial walk through when we created the contract. Only fixture replacements were contracted to be done. When the sub contracted plumber came to do his walk through he determined that there were several plumbing issues and that none of the plumbing in the house was up to code and a plumbing permit would be required to do the work as when the inspectors come and seen the new plumbing work they will look to see if a plumbing permit was obtained if not the Certificate of Occupancy would be in jeopardy one again. It was never stated by the company or its representative that the contract was under bid. The $2150 that was paid out was for the plumber that was going to do the extensive unforeseen plumbing work that needed to be done and the plumbing permit that had to be obtained. It was sated right on the check that was paid to the company.The contract reads that the work would begin when 50% of the agreed labor charge was paid, that payment was received on the evening of 6/2/15 and the work began on 6/3/15 as stated above. The contract also states that when 50% of the work was completed another 25% of labor charge would be paid, this payment of 25% was paid on 6/17/15. For a total of 75% of the labor paid per the contract. [redacted] would never have paid if the work was not complete. So the unprofessionalism claim he is making is also unfounded. He states he only got 25% of the labor but the contract does not stipulate a date that payments were to be made the contract stipulates that payments are made when work is complete. If 50% of the work was not done why would he make the payment?The disrespect [redacted] states he felt was never expressed to the contractor directly or an apology for his feeling disrespected would have been made. The sub-contractors (external contractors: Plumber & Electrician) that still need to be paid after the termination of the contract with PropLink LLC is for work that had already been rendered and some was to be rendered at a later dates.There were never two contractors that walked off the job. PropLink terminated one [redacted] sub-contractor's agreement as he had low attendance a poor attitude and his workmanship/ quality of work was no good. The other [redacted] sub-contractor was still working with PropLink, [redacted] coerced him to sign on with him to complete the project along with [redacted] sub-contractor that PropLink terminated. The company believes that this was all a pout so that 2 sub-contractors could get more money by backing out of the agreement with Proplink with only 22% of the work needing to be done at this point. [redacted] gave me 24 hours to remove my equipment/tools from the property by time I got there about 4 hours later my equipment/tools where already removed by the one [redacted] (subcontractor) placed in my trailer and all his equipment/tools were in the house and the door lock had been changed. As I was leaving the property [redacted] walked up and right in my face ask the [redacted] sub-contractor, do you have the key to the new lock. Later on that night about 945 pm I came back to check my trailer and notice [redacted] (daughter], [redacted] (sub-contractor), [redacted] (sub-contractor) signing contract/agreement alleging to complete the work. [redacted] has filed this complaint with the Revdex.com however there are some complaints to be filed against him as well as the sub-contractors.[redacted] paid for the plumbing permit as he stated in his complaint however as per the contract PropLink paid for the building and electrical permit. ([redacted] even went as far as to highlight in yellow highlighter this section of the contract and stated to me ([redacted] that he was holding PropLink to the contract that was signed and refused to reimburse the company for what was paid for the permits.) Once the contract with PropLink and [redacted] were terminated by him the permit (building) was pulled by PropLink.[redacted] went down to City Hall told them that he paid for the permits so that he could get the permits amended to remove Proplink from the permits and add another contractor which can only be clone by the person that paid for the permits. A representative from the City of Rochester called PropLink and requested proof that PropLink or a representative of PropLink paid for the permits. This proof was furnished. Proplink will be in further contact with City of Rochester on this matter. Note that Proplink has spoken with the electrician and plumbing sub-contractor and have agreed to let them finish the work both the electrical/plumbing work about 90% done. Electrician has informed me that he has spoken with [redacted] and that [redacted] said he was going to pay him the balance of $750.00 left of agreement with Propllnk to complete the work. The pluming sub has been paid in full per the agreement with Proplink as money was paid as stated above.There are receipts for all financial transactions including payments to the sub-contractors that required signatures upon receipt of all payments per agreement all subs. There is also a detailed accounting record of how the money received was dispersed for the labor of this project. There was never any dishonesty or shady dealings on behalf of PropLink LLC. Thank you.Regards,Charles B GMProplink Divine LLC
Please see attached for an additional document.Response to Complaint from [redacted] regarding contract with PropLink Divine LLC:On May 28, [redacted] acted as an agent on behalf of his one daughter who entered into a contract with PropLink LLC for renovation of a house to be rented as College HousingThe first payment of $was received on June 2, we went to [redacted] to order materials and the work on the property began on Wednesday June 3, The estimated date of completion was days from the start of the work which would have been July 3, 2015.Discovered Dishonesty: [redacted] implies regarding the building permits however [redacted] and I (Charles B [redacted] the representative for PropLink LLC discussed that we would not be pulling the permits for this project which is why permit charges were not included in the original estimateThis decision was made to keep costs low for [redacted] & his daughterI admit this was a poor business decision on behalf of the companyOnce the electrician heard mention that a Certificate of Occupancy was going to be obtained to rent the property we realized the permits had to be pulled which [redacted] was immediately made aware of and this, it caused a two week delay in the work being done***' other daughter (name on the property) took it upon herself to call City Hall and had a most disrespectful & demeaning conversation with the electrical inspector's supervisor which almost resulted in the permits being further delayed which would have put an end to the entire project, due to some miss interrupted conversation/information regarding the delayThe dishonesty that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint is unfounded as [redacted] was a part of the dishonesty in the original decision to not pull the permits.Second form of Dishonesty: [redacted] mentions in his complaint that Proplink never produced Insurance Bond InformationThe request for the insurance information was made at the tail end of this business relationship as the Insurance had been obtained and proof was available however [redacted] terminated the business relationship prior to obtaining the proof(Note yes we should have provided it when the contract was signed we were changing insurance companies to better protect are customers and us.) A copy is enclosed for proof.Discovered Unprofessional [redacted] refers to the contract stating that the contractor is responsible for all permits however as mentioned above we originally decided not to pull permits to keep costs lowThe permit for the plumbing was required however because extensive plumbing work had to be done and it was work that was not foreseen in the initial walk through when we created the contractOnly fixture replacements were contracted to be doneWhen the sub contracted plumber came to do his walk through he determined that there were several plumbing issues and that none of the plumbing in the house was up to code and a plumbing permit would be required to do the work as when the inspectors come and seen the new plumbing work they will look to see if a plumbing permit was obtained if not the Certificate of Occupancy would be in jeopardy one againIt was never stated by the company or its representative that the contract was under bidThe $that was paid out was for the plumber that was going to do the extensive unforeseen plumbing work that needed to be done and the plumbing permit that had to be obtainedIt was sated right on the check that was paid to the company.The contract reads that the work would begin when 50% of the agreed labor charge was paid, that payment was received on the evening of 6/2/and the work began on 6/3/as stated aboveThe contract also states that when 50% of the work was completed another 25% of labor charge would be paid, this payment of 25% was paid on 6/17/For a total of 75% of the labor paid per the contract [redacted] would never have paid if the work was not completeSo the unprofessionalism claim he is making is also unfoundedHe states he only got 25% of the labor but the contract does not stipulate a date that payments were to be made the contract stipulates that payments are made when work is completeIf 50% of the work was not done why would he make the payment?The disrespect [redacted] states he felt was never expressed to the contractor directly or an apology for his feeling disrespected would have been madeThe sub-contractors (external contractors: Plumber & Electrician) that still need to be paid after the termination of the contract with PropLink LLC is for work that had already been rendered and some was to be rendered at a later dates.There were never two contractors that walked off the jobPropLink terminated one [redacted] sub-contractor's agreement as he had low attendance a poor attitude and his workmanship/ quality of work was no goodThe other [redacted] sub-contractor was still working with PropLink, [redacted] coerced him to sign on with him to complete the project along with [redacted] sub-contractor that PropLink terminatedThe company believes that this was all a pout so that sub-contractors could get more money by backing out of the agreement with Proplink with only 22% of the work needing to be done at this point [redacted] gave me hours to remove my equipment/tools from the property by time I got there about hours later my equipment/tools where already removed by the one [redacted] (subcontractor) placed in my trailer and all his equipment/tools were in the house and the door lock had been changedAs I was leaving the property [redacted] walked up and right in my face ask the [redacted] [redacted] sub-contractor, do you have the key to the new lockLater on that night about pm I came back to check my trailer and notice ***, [redacted] (daughter], [redacted] (sub-contractor), [redacted] (sub-contractor) signing contract/agreement alleging to complete the work [redacted] has filed this complaint with the Revdex.com however there are some complaints to be filed against him as well as the sub-contractors[redacted] paid for the plumbing permit as he stated in his complaint however as per the contract PropLink paid for the building and electrical permit( [redacted] even went as far as to highlight in yellow highlighter this section of the contract and stated to me ( [redacted] that he was holding PropLink to the contract that was signed and refused to reimburse the company for what was paid for the permits.) Once the contract with PropLink and [redacted] were terminated by him the permit (building) was pulled by PropLink[redacted] went down to City Hall told them that he paid for the permits so that he could get the permits amended to remove Proplink from the permits and add another contractor which can only be clone by the person that paid for the permitsA representative from the City of Rochester called PropLink and requested proof that PropLink or a representative of PropLink paid for the permitsThis proof was furnishedProplink will be in further contact with City of Rochester on this matterNote that Proplink has spoken with the electrician and plumbing sub-contractor and have agreed to let them finish the work both the electrical/plumbing work about 90% doneElectrician has informed me that he has spoken with [redacted] and that [redacted] said he was going to pay him the balance of $left of agreement with Propllnk to complete the workThe pluming sub has been paid in full per the agreement with Proplink as money was paid as stated above.There are receipts for all financial transactions including payments to the sub-contractors that required signatures upon receipt of all payments per agreement all subsThere is also a detailed accounting record of how the money received was dispersed for the labor of this projectThere was never any dishonesty or shady dealings on behalf of PropLink LLCThank you.Regards,Charles B GMProplink Divine LLC
Please see attached for an additional document.Response to Complaint from [redacted] regarding contract with PropLink Divine LLC:On May 28, 2015 [redacted] acted as an agent on behalf of his one daughter who entered into a contract with PropLink LLC for renovation of a house to be rented as...
College Housing. The first payment of $5000 was received on June 2, 2015 we went to [redacted] to order materials and the work on the property began on Wednesday June 3, 2015. The estimated date of completion was 30 days from the start of the work which would have been July 3, 2015.Discovered Dishonesty: [redacted] implies regarding the building permits however [redacted] and I (Charles B[redacted] the representative for PropLink LLC discussed that we would not be pulling the permits for this project which is why permit charges were not included in the original estimate. This decision was made to keep costs low for [redacted] & his daughter. I admit this was a poor business decision on behalf of the company. Once the electrician heard mention that a Certificate of Occupancy was going to be obtained to rent the property we realized the permits had to be pulled which [redacted] was immediately made aware of and this, it caused a two week delay in the work being done. [redacted]' other daughter (name on the property) took it upon herself to call City Hall and had a most disrespectful & demeaning conversation with the electrical inspector's supervisor which almost resulted in the permits being further delayed which would have put an end to the entire project, due to some miss interrupted conversation/information regarding the delay. The dishonesty that [redacted] is referring to in his complaint is unfounded as [redacted] was a part of the dishonesty in the original decision to not pull the permits.Second form of Dishonesty: [redacted] mentions in his complaint that Proplink never produced Insurance Bond Information. The request for the insurance information was made at the tail end of this business relationship as the Insurance had been obtained and proof was available however [redacted] terminated the business relationship prior to obtaining the proof. (Note yes we should have provided it when the contract was signed we were changing insurance companies to better protect are customers and us.) A copy is enclosed for proof.Discovered Unprofessional Behavior: [redacted] refers to the contract stating that the contractor is responsible for all permits however as mentioned above we originally decided not to pull permits to keep costs low. The permit for the plumbing was required however because extensive plumbing work had to be done and it was work that was not foreseen in the initial walk through when we created the contract. Only fixture replacements were contracted to be done. When the sub contracted plumber came to do his walk through he determined that there were several plumbing issues and that none of the plumbing in the house was up to code and a plumbing permit would be required to do the work as when the inspectors come and seen the new plumbing work they will look to see if a plumbing permit was obtained if not the Certificate of Occupancy would be in jeopardy one again. It was never stated by the company or its representative that the contract was under bid. The $2150 that was paid out was for the plumber that was going to do the extensive unforeseen plumbing work that needed to be done and the plumbing permit that had to be obtained. It was sated right on the check that was paid to the company.The contract reads that the work would begin when 50% of the agreed labor charge was paid, that payment was received on the evening of 6/2/15 and the work began on 6/3/15 as stated above. The contract also states that when 50% of the work was completed another 25% of labor charge would be paid, this payment of 25% was paid on 6/17/15. For a total of 75% of the labor paid per the contract. [redacted] would never have paid if the work was not complete. So the unprofessionalism claim he is making is also unfounded. He states he only got 25% of the labor but the contract does not stipulate a date that payments were to be made the contract stipulates that payments are made when work is complete. If 50% of the work was not done why would he make the payment?The disrespect [redacted] states he felt was never expressed to the contractor directly or an apology for his feeling disrespected would have been made. The sub-contractors (external contractors: Plumber & Electrician) that still need to be paid after the termination of the contract with PropLink LLC is for work that had already been rendered and some was to be rendered at a later dates.There were never two contractors that walked off the job. PropLink terminated one [redacted] sub-contractor's agreement as he had low attendance a poor attitude and his workmanship/ quality of work was no good. The other [redacted] sub-contractor was still working with PropLink, [redacted] coerced him to sign on with him to complete the project along with [redacted] sub-contractor that PropLink terminated. The company believes that this was all a pout so that 2 sub-contractors could get more money by backing out of the agreement with Proplink with only 22% of the work needing to be done at this point. [redacted] gave me 24 hours to remove my equipment/tools from the property by time I got there about 4 hours later my equipment/tools where already removed by the one [redacted] (subcontractor) placed in my trailer and all his equipment/tools were in the house and the door lock had been changed. As I was leaving the property [redacted] walked up and right in my face ask the [redacted] sub-contractor, do you have the key to the new lock. Later on that night about 945 pm I came back to check my trailer and notice [redacted] (daughter], [redacted] (sub-contractor), [redacted] (sub-contractor) signing contract/agreement alleging to complete the work. [redacted] has filed this complaint with the Revdex.com however there are some complaints to be filed against him as well as the sub-contractors.[redacted] paid for the plumbing permit as he stated in his complaint however as per the contract PropLink paid for the building and electrical permit. ([redacted] even went as far as to highlight in yellow highlighter this section of the contract and stated to me ([redacted] that he was holding PropLink to the contract that was signed and refused to reimburse the company for what was paid for the permits.) Once the contract with PropLink and [redacted] were terminated by him the permit (building) was pulled by PropLink.[redacted] went down to City Hall told them that he paid for the permits so that he could get the permits amended to remove Proplink from the permits and add another contractor which can only be clone by the person that paid for the permits. A representative from the City of Rochester called PropLink and requested proof that PropLink or a representative of PropLink paid for the permits. This proof was furnished. Proplink will be in further contact with City of Rochester on this matter. Note that Proplink has spoken with the electrician and plumbing sub-contractor and have agreed to let them finish the work both the electrical/plumbing work about 90% done. Electrician has informed me that he has spoken with [redacted] and that [redacted] said he was going to pay him the balance of $750.00 left of agreement with Propllnk to complete the work. The pluming sub has been paid in full per the agreement with Proplink as money was paid as stated above.There are receipts for all financial transactions including payments to the sub-contractors that required signatures upon receipt of all payments per agreement all subs. There is also a detailed accounting record of how the money received was dispersed for the labor of this project. There was never any dishonesty or shady dealings on behalf of PropLink LLC. Thank you.Regards,Charles B GMProplink Divine LLC