Province Builders

Contact Name and Title: ***, Owner
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: ***@provincebuilders.com
The customer has grossly overstated the complaint regarding warranty for his home. It has been revealed through recent conversations with the customer that the customer did not follow protocol when requesting service from the builder to address items considered to be covered by warranty. The customer verbally indicated that he had 3 items that he wanted addressed. Our company provides a welcome packet with all contacts, including ours, to address any issues during the warranty period. The customer claimed that he never received a closing packet. In spite of this, the customer had direct contact info and communication with the project manager who oversaw the project.

The following items were the customer's complaints followed by our response:

1.Issue:

A water spot appeared on the Living Room ceiling which the customer believed was due to a leak. The leak, as the customer has since admitted, was due to water intrusion around an uncovered door during inclement weather.

Response:

The customer suspected there was a leak in the home. The customer admitted the he has never seen water leak from the this area again nor has the spot enlarged. The customer indicated the break occurred as a result of torrential rains associated with the tornado that impacted the city. Since there was NO evidence of any further leak relating to our plumbing installation it was deemed to be an item NOT covered under warranty . Instead it was due to circumstances not relating to the construction of the home. The customer was advised to file an insurance claim with his homeowner's insurance policy. The customer has declined to do so for reasons not known to us. However, we have since addressed the issue in spite of the belief that this wasn't and isn't a issue covered by our warranty.

2. Issue:

The customer had a ceiling fan that didn't oscillate consistently or properly.

Response:

The customer should have contacted the electrician or us directly via contacts supplied to him in the welcome packet. The customer did contact the project manager at some point in time to inform him of this issue. The project manager and customer seem to have varying accounts as to if access was granted to the home by the homeowner to allow electrician to address the issue on the days that the electrician was available. The electrician has since gained access to the home and issue was resolved.

3. Issue:
The customer has a sewer line that had blockage prior to the warranty expiring.

Response:

The customer's sewer line is connected to the city's main sewer line which has been found to be damaged. The project manager and customer both reviewed the results of us having a camera explore the city's sewer line to determine where a breach or damage was located. It was determined that the damage was indeed outside of the property line that of which we performed any work to make the reconnection. In this process, our reconnection to the existing line from the previous home that we demolished did NOT occur outside the boundaries of the customer's property. Thus, the issue, as the camera revealed , is located outside of the property line and in the public street and should be repaired by the city . We contend that this is not an item under our warranty as we operated under normal assumptions and protocol and reconnected to the existing sewer without making a sewer tap outside of the property boundaries. We did NOT make a new sewer tap which would have required us to go into the street and go further downstream to connect directly to the city's main sewer line. That type of installation would support the argument the issue was caused by our installation because we would have had to install the entire run of pipe all the way back to the home that we built. This was NOT the case. In spite of this , we had and have agreed, to repair the city's line for the city so that the customer can be assured that the line is fixed but the city refuses to partake in the repair as it relates to restoring the asphalt pavement back to its normal state. We continue to engage the city and are having ongoing discussions as to how the city would like to assist with this issue that was NOT caused by our company.

As further evidence, we had the same sewer issue occur at XXXX XXth Ave S within the last 30 days
and it involved the exact same circumstances. The city would not take responsibility until we excavated out the street so far that it was irrefutable that the breach occurred as a result of Metro's sewer lines being damaged. They have since relieved us of our duties and obligations are now taking over the entire repair.

It is our desire to accommodate any of our customer's needs and to address any issues that may arise during the warranty period. However, protocol must be followed to ensure a proper response from us and all issues must fall within our guidelines set forth in our warranty.