Pruett's Ltd. II Floor Covering

Review: B. B. Compliant [redacted] against Pruett Floor Covering[redacted] made Pruett aware of a timetable they had for the rehab project for the property. They also made you aware that the condo they were living in was listed for sale and probably would not sell until after June 2013.On April 4, 2013 a contract was presented by you to [redacted] and [redacted] and signed. This contract was the product of extended conversations, meetings and visits with [redacted] at the residence over a period of weeks.On or about April 4, 2013 you were paid $10,000.00, allegedly ordered materials and expected the materials to arrive in four (4) weeks time.On July 1, 2013 or approximately 90 days later you began the work.The 1300 square foot home arguably should not have taken more than one week to complete.[redacted] and [redacted] accepted an offer on their condominium in mid-August with a closing date of September 25, 2013. [redacted] and [redacted] informed you of this.As of the day of acceptance of the offer, more than 30 days had passed since the project was begun. The extended amount of time you took to complete this project had already raised concerns for [redacted] and [redacted]. The first time they became concerned was the delay between contract signing and starting of work on July 1. The second time being start of work through August 16, 2013. Four months had passed since the work contract was signed.The delay on your portion of the project caused delays with other contractors. You had six solid weeks to finish your job but this did not occur.Kitchen and bath appliances could not be installed and plumbing projects were at a stand still.[redacted] and [redacted] made it very clear that all work would need to be completed prior to September 23, 2013 which was two days before their actual closing date to ensure no problems arose and to ensure that movers could seamlessly move the parties personal belongings from condo to home.Work was not completed but [redacted] and [redacted] were forced to move to the property regardless, despite the presence of construction waste and non-operable shower and tub.Upon moving into the residence the parties were able to confirm the manner of the work actually completed and made their concerns well known. The complaints consisted of the following:a.Failure to follow wall work by agreed upon design.b.Cove was improperly placed per design. *Design was spoken about and confirmed repeatedly with you and with [redacted] on numerous occasions. That this was a unique design is a given. However, according to [redacted] and [redacted] you made it very clear that the uniqueness was considered in the price of the contract.c.Jagged edges exist on porcelain tiled.Grout incomplete, not cleaned and an insufficient amount used. In addition, excess grout is spread across many of the tiles and has dried onto the tiles.e.Dangerously sharp edges on the floor of the shower.f.Many tiles are unsightly, not flush or simply not straight.g.Improper and unflattering cuts to tiles in an unnecessary manner.h.Use of cove that was contrary to the design concept as well as not the cove that should have been ordered in the first place.i.A makeshift attempt to give the impression the tile behind the stove carried to the floor when in fact it did not.j.Misuse of tile meant for the kitchen area in the bathroom, which lead to an unacceptable appearance and drainage issues.k.Misuse of other contractor time and efforts to correct repeated mistakes by your tile installers to either work around, mistakes and or due to miscommunication by yourself.l.Damage to expensive European wall cabinets and vanities by your repeated request to other contractors to repeatedly replace and remove the cabinets for you to put tile behind them. This ultimately was never done despite your statements that the design of the cabinets was simple and that they would be placed on top of tile. Since this did not occur, the bare wall is behind the cabinets. The cabinets are in incorrect locations and additional accessories cannot be attached per design.m.Holes cut in expensive floor to accommodate venting that did not exist.n.Added expense and delay to work due to materials and equipment left behind by your employees on floors that required refinishing.o.Damages to bricks that were damaged by your employees dumping tiling waste on surfaces of salvaged brick. The bricks were to be used for other projects on the home and are no longer available for purchase.The complaints are not inclusive of all that exist. The work remains in the condition noted and is unfinished and unacceptable. The master bath and tub remain inoperable, shower doors cannot be installed until the project is finished, and cabinetry and other fixtures are damaged from your lack of expeditious, workmanlike activity.The damages in this case are extreme. In addition, there is tile remaining which is of no use and which is a complete waste of money. [redacted] and [redacted] have spent money they should not have had to spend and it would appear the bathroom project needs to be demolished and redone.Desired Settlement: Our proposed resolution to this matter is as follows: 1. The charges outlined on the proposal you presented on April 4, 2013 includes materials and installation for work that was actually performed which totals $10,303.55. Those line items are for installation and materials required for the Pickle Barrel floors, vinyl floors, a cut below the fireplace to accommodate flooring, and unnecessary additional sub-flooring in closets.2. To the charges outlined in point number 1 above; you failed to complete the transitions between doors for an additional charge $420.00; cut holes in wood floors where no venting was required or present; failed to complete vent cut outs where they were needed; added a third layer of sub-floor requiring the trimming of all doors, including $4085.80 custom made doors; and, spent an inordinate amount of time installing floors causing delays to other contractors and failing to clean up after yourself. This clearly represents a failure to conduct work in an expedit

Business

Response:

The first comment I would like to make is to restate that after almost

23 years of being part of the West Bend business community, I’ve never had to

answer a better business claim or to an attorney. My apologies for taking this long to respond.

We take great pride at Pruett’s and understand that without

great customers, trust, professionalism, high quality products, good

communication and top notch certified installers, we could not have a

legitimate or successful business 23 years later.

I would like to believe that for all, if not most of these

reasons are why MJJ & FT chose to do business with us. Unfortunately, it has become obvious that thing

went wrong. I do believe that it takes at least two to three people or more to

effectively communicate on a custom job of this nature, with several different

contractors involved. For this reason,

I’m not willing to take all or even a majority of the blame as the customers

would like everyone to believe. As

stated earlier, this was a custom job and to say it was “unique” is an

understatement. It was on ongoing,

evolving, often-changing and compromised job right from the start.

I do not intend to make excuses or point the finger at any

one person(s) involved, but I am simply stating that this become complicated

because of changes, absenteeism, and lack of good communication by all

involved. Some of these issues could

have been avoided, and others not. In

addition to the complex nature of this custom job, throughout the entire job,

Pruett’s were lead to believe that Krieser Construction and [redacted]. were the

general contractors, yet in the end we were told that the general contractor

was MJJ. With all of her travels back and for to D.C. and her mother’s passing,

we had to rely mostly on FT for the onsite decisions and approvals. When meeting MJJ & FT on several

occasions to confirm layout changes or to reconfirm details, it often felt as

though we were holding up MJ’s agenda, and that she was focused on her busy

schedule. This is why we communicated

with FT instead; truly believing we were being considerate of her.

The first day Pruett’s had a legitimate chance to start this

job was 7.1.13, approximately three days after [redacted]. left for vacation. He

had promised to partially rebuild the tub deck and shower stall do to a “design

flaw”. Contractors do not always work

well together if in each other’s way, slowing each other down. Floor covering professionals should be the

last ones, or next to last ones in a home prior to move-in day. For that reason, this job was complicated and

compromised from the start. This is not

normal with complete remodel jobs, but does happen on occasion. We’re always

willing to work through changes and scheduling issues, but it comes next to

impossible to change our schedule during our busiest season.

Here is my list of just some of the many things that created

much confusion, schedule set-backs, extra products being ordered, overall

delays and frustrations for all involved: