Sign in

Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc.

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc.? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc.

Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc. Reviews (8)

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. It appears that they did not try to resolve the issue, but to justify their absurd interpretation of a contract for a job that they recommend against doing. 
Quality1st is grossly misrepresenting the circumstances and their behavior. First, they bid a job site unseen (using old 2013 information). It is not unreasonable to expect a licensed professional to not dust off 2 year old information to bid a job to refurbish the outside of a cabin. I assumed that they had as I would expect any reasonable company to have done. That was my mistake. Then, when their representative came out, we were told that sandblasting would result in significant damage because of the state of the wood. This was their FIRST site visit in years, and  only after they proposed the work, and I agreed to it. Had they actually inspected the site when they drafted the bid, it appears clear that they would have recommended the new siding and we would not have this problem. We were never informed of the job 'being scheduled', and indeed, it seems unlikely to be true since when [redacted] inspected the house, he recommended against sandblasting and we informed him to please refund the deposit and to provide a bid for the more expensive siding work. As far as any of us know, the job WAS never scheduled. This is something Quality1st has trumped up to make it appear that they have done significant work on the project, when, in fact, their employee was here for about an hour total over 2 separate visits, both AFTER the contract was executed. (See my associate's comments below)For that reason, the contract was created in bad faith as it was reasonable for me to (1) expect that, as 'professionals', their recommendation was valid and accurate and (2) they would have actually inspected the property before drafting the contract. Of note, when their employee first inspected the site in 2015 AFTER the contract was signed, he strongly urged us not to perform the sandblasting and when he was asked to refund the deposit, he stated that he would let the office know. He didn't state that it 'was never done' or 'couldn't be done'.  This problem would not have happened had Quality1st done a modicum of legwork when bidding the job, or at least in stating on the bid "site NOT inspected... bid subject to significant revision'. I can see why a deposit would not be refundable under normal circumstances however, in this case, Quality1st failed to inspect the property prior to drafting a bid, did not schedule the work (as the minute [redacted] told us that we shouldn't sandblast, we asked him to refund our money, and [redacted] was the scheduler), and it is upon THEIR advice that we are not moving forward with sandblasting. Given their gross negligence in not inspecting the property prior to presenting a bid, I think it only reasonable that they refund the down payment and we go our separate ways. While they imply that they have incurred substantial costs, bidding a job is a normal cost of doing business for any contracting firm. In this case, had they actually visited the site prior to the bid being presented, none of this disaster would have happened. Of note, my associates have worked with me for years, managed multiple repairs with dozens of contractors for multiple properties. Nothing like this has ever occurred in all of these years until this episode. I have asked her for her summary as well and post it here. The original measurements and bid was done in February 2013.
I don't know who did that but apparently it wasn't [redacted] because he said that
he had never seen the job. The job was postponed until this February 2015
at which time they sent the updated contract with no mention of the condition
of the siding. When you sent the check and signed contract to Q 1st,
I talked to [redacted] about scheduling. The delay came because his crew
was booked on other jobs so he didn't know when he could schedule
[redacted]. They were booked up for a while so they never got back to
us with a scheduled time.  [redacted] hadn't personally seen the job and
wanted to do so. We made arrangements to meet him at [redacted] but he couldn't
make it at our meeting time so he went on his own later. After he saw the job
we spoke about the condition of the wood. He said that the siding was very
dry and twisted and he was afraid it would split and crack if they tried to work
it. He said that he didn't feel comfortable using the old siding. He then
mentioned he didn't think it would be much more expensive to just
replace all of the siding because of the expense of labor and equipment rental
for the sandblasting job. Because of the condition of the wood and his
estimation that the expense would be fairly comparable to sand blasting, his
recommendation was to replace the siding so I asked him to give us a bid to do
that. The bid came back considerably higher than the original bid.
I called [redacted] to let him know that we needed to consider
our options so please refund the check. He said that he would ask [redacted] to
do that. The second time I spoke with [redacted] I asked him about the
check and he again said that he would talk to [redacted]. That's when [redacted] gave me
a call and said that they don't refund deposit checks on a signed contract.Customers rely on the Revdex.com to protect them from unscrupulous companies, and at a minimum, other potential customers should be aware of how they have treated us in this transaction.  
Regards,
[redacted]

In response to the above referenced complaint I would like to review more of tile details involved. The individual that filed this complaint has not even been involved with us on a first hand basis. Any information they have received or that has come to us from them has been through another...

individual prior to the last couple of weeks. We were originally requested to look at this job in June of 2013 based off the customers request for work and gave the bid to do the work. In March of 2015 the customer contacted us to re-bid the job and finally in April of 2015 to move forward. Even though two more winters have come and gone accumulating additional ware to the structure the original contract could still be completed as written. The customer was not told that the work could not be done as contracted originally. The customer asked about some specific repair work that they wanted done and when presented an estimate and option they asked our opinion about what would give the longest, best results, replacing the siding or sandblasting. Replacing the siding is more expensive and the customer was informed as such. Late in the afternoon on Friday May 1st the customer contacted us and asked us not to start the work scheduled for the morning of Monday May 4th. Again this information came through another individual not the complainant. The customer chose to cancel the contract not because it could not be done but because they chose to do something else. Our contract says "Deposits NOT refundable" on it next to the signature line (see attached 2 copies one signed and one more legible). The customer was informed that we would be happy to cancel the original contract and apply the deposit to a new contract to complete the new scope of work. Our company already has an investment into this project with all of the time that has gone into bidding, re-bidding, scheduling, stopping work and now bidding a new scope of work. Summery; Quality 1st Custom Builders Inc has been more than professional with this customer in trying to fulfill their requested scope of work, now on two levels and over a great span of time. Quality 1st Custom Builders has also tried to cooperate with the customer as they have changed their minds as to the scope of work to be done. A bait and switch has never existed as the first contract could still be fulfilled if the customer wanted it. The customer has chosen to change the scope of work. This example may help to explain the situation. If you have a car that needs $2000 worth of repairs and is only worth $2000 you may choose to do the work so you spend less money and hope it will get you by for a bit linger or you may decide not to do the work and spend the money on a new car. The old car will still work but not last as long as spending the money to buy a new one.

Revdex.com4428 N. 12th St.PhoenixAZ 85014RE: Complaint ID # [redacted]June 10, 2015Dear Marie Garcia,In Response to the complaint referenced above, I would like to state the following: I)  The original inspection was performed in Aug. of2013 and the original bidsubmitted on Aug. 16, 2013. I came to work for Quality  I st  Custom Builders inNovember of 1014 so I did not participate inthe original inspection and quote.2)  In April of2015 Quality  1st Custom Builders was contacted by the client and informed they wanted to proceed  with the work that had been bid originally. r contacted our sandblasting sub-contractor and confirmed the job pricing and thenre-submitted the quote to the client.3)  Upon Receipt of the client's deposit I contacted our sandblasting sub-contractor and informed them to put the project into the schedule. I also contacted the client's painting contractor to coordinate the project. I informed Mrs. Sandra [redacted] about the anticipated start date for the project, May 4, 2015.4)  The week  prior to May 4, 2015, I was contacted by Mrs. [redacted] who had concerns of holes in the dormer siding.   I was asked to inspect this and give a bid on replacing or repairing the dormer siding, which I did. After I submitted the dormer siding quote I had a conversation with Mrs. [redacted] asked  me about the siding in general and questions about re-nailing the log siding and tightening up cups and twists present in the siding. I inspected the log siding and found it to be very dry and splitting. I informed her that there was very little that we could do to correct the siding condition, but she could consult with her painter about options to fill cracks and re-seal the wood to preserve it. We also discussed the option of just replacing the siding as then the sandblasting would not be requiredwhich would help minimize the siding cost as well as making it an easier paint jobfor the painter. I then provided a quote to replace the log siding. I was contactedby Mrs. [redacted] on May 1, 20I 5, which was the Friday before the start date of Monday May 4, 2015 and asked to hold the sandblasting crew until they reviewed their options and decided on how they would proceed.5)  In summery; I was not requested to inspect the property when first contacted.  The client wanted to go forward with the original quote.  I did not inform them that the siding would be damaged or could not be sandblasted, only that they should discuss the condition and options for filling gaps and cracks with their painter. Idid not tell them that in my opinion, it was not a good cow-se of action to attempt spot siding repairs due to the siding age and condition and that we were only willing to bid on siding replacement and that we were not willing to bid spot siding repairs.  I only provided the quotes for the scope of work as requested by the client.  The existing siding could have been sandblasted, as had been scheduled, but replacing the old, drysplit siding would have provided a much more efficient, longer lasting and better looking siding finish.  Mrs. [redacted] and I spoke when I submitted the siding bid about applying the deposit money ftom the sandblasting to the siding if they decided to go with that option; which I told her I was sure that would be possible_ She contacted me a second time a couple ofdays later after canceling the sandblasting and requested that the deposit be refunded.  I told her that I did not handle the financial part of the business, and did not have the authority to do so, but that I would present her request to our office manager.  I informed [redacted], our Office Manager, and asked him to contact Mrs. [redacted] about her request.

Revdex.com4428 N. 12th St.PhoenixAZ 85014RE: Complaint ID # [redacted]June 10, 2015Dear Marie Garcia,In Response to the complaint referenced above, I would like to state the following: I)  The original inspection was performed in Aug. of2013 and the original bidsubmitted on Aug. 16, 2013. I came to work for Quality  I st  Custom Builders inNovember of 1014 so I did not participate inthe original inspection and quote.2)  In April of2015 Quality  1st Custom Builders was contacted by the client and informed they wanted to proceed  with the work that had been bid originally. r contacted our sandblasting sub-contractor and confirmed the job pricing and thenre-submitted the quote to the client.3)  Upon Receipt of the client's deposit I contacted our sandblasting sub-contractor and informed them to put the project into the schedule. I also contacted the client's painting contractor to coordinate the project. I informed Mrs. Sandra [redacted] about the anticipated start date for the project, May 4, 2015.4)  The week  prior to May 4, 2015, I was contacted by Mrs. [redacted] who had concerns of holes in the dormer siding.   I was asked to inspect this and give a bid on replacing or repairing the dormer siding, which I did. After I submitted the dormer siding quote I had a conversation with Mrs. [redacted], [redacted] asked  me about the siding in general and questions about re-nailing the log siding and tightening up cups and twists present in the siding. I inspected the log siding and found it to be very dry and splitting. I informed her that there was very little that we could do to correct the siding condition, but she could consult with her painter about options to fill cracks and re-seal the wood to preserve it. We also discussed the option of just replacing the siding as then the sandblasting would not be requiredwhich would help minimize the siding cost as well as making it an easier paint jobfor the painter. I then provided a quote to replace the log siding. I was contactedby Mrs. [redacted] on May 1, 20I 5, which was the Friday before the start date of Monday May 4, 2015 and asked to hold the sandblasting crew until they reviewed their options and decided on how they would proceed.5)  In summery; I was not requested to inspect the property when first contacted.  The client wanted to go forward with the original quote.  I did not inform them that the siding would be damaged or could not be sandblasted, only that they should discuss the condition and options for filling gaps and cracks with their painter. I
did not tell them that in my opinion, it was not a good cow-se of action to attempt spot siding repairs due to the siding age and condition and that we were only willing to bid on siding replacement and that we were not willing to bid spot siding repairs.  I only provided the quotes for the scope of work as requested by the client.  The existing siding could have been sandblasted, as had been scheduled, but replacing the old, drysplit siding would have provided a much more efficient, longer lasting and better looking siding finish.  Mrs. [redacted] and I spoke when I submitted the siding bid about applying the deposit money ftom the sandblasting to the siding if they decided to go with that option; which I told her I was sure that would be possible_ She contacted me a second time a couple ofdays later after canceling the sandblasting and requested that the deposit be refunded.  I told her that I did not handle the financial part of the business, and did not have the authority to do so, but that I would present her request to our office manager.  I informed [redacted], our Office Manager, and asked him to contact Mrs. [redacted] about her request.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. It appears that they did not try to resolve the issue, but to justify their absurd interpretation of a contract for a job that they recommend against doing. Quality1st is grossly misrepresenting the circumstances and their behavior. First, they bid a job site unseen (using old 2013 information). It is not unreasonable to expect a licensed professional to not dust off 2 year old information to bid a job to refurbish the outside of a cabin. I assumed that they had as I would expect any reasonable company to have done. That was my mistake. 
Then, when their representative came out, we were told that sandblasting would result in significant damage because of the state of the wood. This was their FIRST site visit in years, and  only after they proposed the work, and I agreed to it. Had they actually inspected the site when they drafted the bid, it appears clear that they would have recommended the new siding and we would not have this problem. 
We were never informed of the job 'being scheduled', and indeed, it seems unlikely to be true since when [redacted] inspected the house, he recommended against sandblasting and we informed him to please refund the deposit and to provide a bid for the more expensive siding work. As far as any of us know, the job WAS never scheduled. This is something Quality1st has trumped up to make it appear that they have done significant work on the project, when, in fact, their employee was here for about an hour total over 2 separate visits, both AFTER the contract was executed. (See my associate's comments below)
For that reason, the contract was created in bad faith as it was reasonable for me to (1) expect that, as 'professionals', their recommendation was valid and accurate and (2) they would have actually inspected the property before drafting the contract. 
Of note, when their employee first inspected the site in 2015 AFTER the contract was signed, he strongly urged us not to perform the sandblasting and when he was asked to refund the deposit, he stated that he would let the office know. He didn't state that it 'was never done' or 'couldn't be done'.  This problem would not have happened had Quality1st done a modicum of legwork when bidding the job, or at least in stating on the bid "site NOT inspected... bid subject to significant revision'. I can see why a deposit would not be refundable under normal circumstances however, in this case, Quality1st failed to inspect the property prior to drafting a bid, did not schedule the work (as the minute [redacted] told us that we shouldn't sandblast, we asked him to refund our money, and [redacted] was the scheduler), and it is upon THEIR advice that we are not moving forward with sandblasting. 
Given their gross negligence in not inspecting the property prior to presenting a bid, I think it only reasonable that they refund the down payment and we go our separate ways. While they imply that they have incurred substantial costs, bidding a job is a normal cost of doing business for any contracting firm. In this case, had they actually visited the site prior to the bid being presented, none of this disaster would have happened. 
Of note, my associates have worked with me for years, managed multiple repairs with dozens of contractors for multiple properties. Nothing like this has ever occurred in all of these years until this episode. I have asked her for her summary as well and post it here. 
The original measurements and bid was done in February 2013.

I don't know who did that but apparently it wasn't [redacted] because he said that

he had never seen the job. The job was postponed until this February 2015

at which time they sent the updated contract with no mention of the condition

of the siding. When you sent the check and signed contract to Q 1st,

I talked to [redacted] about scheduling. The delay came because his crew

was booked on other jobs so he didn't know when he could schedule

[redacted]. They were booked up for a while so they never got back to

us with a scheduled time.  [redacted] hadn't personally seen the job and

wanted to do so. We made arrangements to meet him at [redacted] but he couldn't

make it at our meeting time so he went on his own later. After he saw the job

we spoke about the condition of the wood. He said that the siding was very

dry and twisted and he was afraid it would split and crack if they tried to work

it. He said that he didn't feel comfortable using the old siding. He then

mentioned he didn't think it would be much more expensive to just

replace all of the siding because of the expense of labor and equipment rental

for the sandblasting job. Because of the condition of the wood and his

estimation that the expense would be fairly comparable to sand blasting, his

recommendation was to replace the siding so I asked him to give us a bid to do

that. The bid came back considerably higher than the original bid.

I called [redacted] to let him know that we needed to consider

our options so please refund the check. He said that he would ask [redacted] to

do that. The second time I spoke with [redacted] I asked him about the

check and he again said that he would talk to [redacted]. That's when [redacted] gave me

a call and said that they don't refund deposit checks on a signed contract.
Customers rely on the Revdex.com to protect them from unscrupulous companies, and at a minimum, other potential customers should be aware of how they have treated us in this transaction. 
 

Regards,

In response to the above referenced complaint I would like to review more of tile details involved. The individual that filed this complaint has not even been involved with us on a first hand basis. Any information they have received or that has come to us from them has been through another...

individual prior to the last couple of weeks. We were originally requested to look at this job in June of 2013 based off the customers request for work and gave the bid to do the work. In March of 2015 the customer contacted us to re-bid the job and finally in April of 2015 to move forward. Even though two more winters have come and gone accumulating additional ware to the structure the original contract could still be completed as written. The customer was not told that the work could not be done as contracted originally. The customer asked about some specific repair work that they wanted done and when presented an estimate and option they asked our opinion about what would give the longest, best results, replacing the siding or sandblasting. Replacing the siding is more expensive and the customer was informed as such. Late in the afternoon on Friday May 1st the customer contacted us and asked us not to start the work scheduled for the morning of Monday May 4th. Again this information came through another individual not the complainant. The customer chose to cancel the contract not because it could not be done but because they chose to do something else. Our contract says "Deposits NOT refundable" on it next to the signature line (see attached 2 copies one signed and one more legible). The customer was informed that we would be happy to cancel the original contract and apply the deposit to a new contract to complete the new scope of work. Our company already has an investment into this project with all of the time that has gone into bidding, re-bidding, scheduling, stopping work and now bidding a new scope of work. Summery; Quality 1st Custom Builders Inc has been more than professional with this customer in trying to fulfill their requested scope of work, now on two levels and over a great span of time. Quality 1st Custom Builders has also tried to cooperate with the customer as they have changed their minds as to the scope of work to be done. A bait and switch has never existed as the first contract could still be fulfilled if the customer wanted it. The customer has chosen to change the scope of work. This example may help to explain the situation. If you have a car that needs $2000 worth of repairs and is only worth $2000 you may choose to do the work so you spend less money and hope it will get you by for a bit linger or you may decide not to do the work and spend the money on a new car. The old car will still work but not last as long as spending the money to buy a new one.

Review: We asked the company to prepare a bid for sandblasting and staining the house. They came out and evaluated the work. We signed a contract based on their evaluation. Soon thereafter, their representative informed us that the wood was too old and cracked to sandblast and stain and the home would require completely new siding (bait and switch after contract signed). I asked them to (1) provide a bid for the updated services and (2) to refund the check as the initial contract for sandblasting was obviously null and void. [redacted] informed us that he would ask [redacted] to refund the check. Subsequently, I was told by [redacted] that they would not refund the check because they 'have a signed contract'. My issue is (1) their amazing lack of professionalism in waiting to inform me that the sandblasting would not work until after the contract was signed, (2) failing to refund the check as promised. I'm hoping to avoid a legal battle.Desired Settlement: Refund check for sandblasting contract that is for work that they now recommend would be futile.

Business

Response:

In response to the above referenced complaint I would like to review more of tile details involved. The individual that filed this complaint has not even been involved with us on a first hand basis. Any information they have received or that has come to us from them has been through another individual prior to the last couple of weeks. We were originally requested to look at this job in June of 2013 based off the customers request for work and gave the bid to do the work. In March of 2015 the customer contacted us to re-bid the job and finally in April of 2015 to move forward. Even though two more winters have come and gone accumulating additional ware to the structure the original contract could still be completed as written. The customer was not told that the work could not be done as contracted originally. The customer asked about some specific repair work that they wanted done and when presented an estimate and option they asked our opinion about what would give the longest, best results, replacing the siding or sandblasting. Replacing the siding is more expensive and the customer was informed as such. Late in the afternoon on Friday May 1st the customer contacted us and asked us not to start the work scheduled for the morning of Monday May 4th. Again this information came through another individual not the complainant. The customer chose to cancel the contract not because it could not be done but because they chose to do something else. Our contract says "Deposits NOT refundable" on it next to the signature line (see attached 2 copies one signed and one more legible). The customer was informed that we would be happy to cancel the original contract and apply the deposit to a new contract to complete the new scope of work. Our company already has an investment into this project with all of the time that has gone into bidding, re-bidding, scheduling, stopping work and now bidding a new scope of work. Summery; Quality 1st Custom Builders Inc has been more than professional with this customer in trying to fulfill their requested scope of work, now on two levels and over a great span of time. Quality 1st Custom Builders has also tried to cooperate with the customer as they have changed their minds as to the scope of work to be done. A bait and switch has never existed as the first contract could still be fulfilled if the customer wanted it. The customer has chosen to change the scope of work. This example may help to explain the situation. If you have a car that needs $2000 worth of repairs and is only worth $2000 you may choose to do the work so you spend less money and hope it will get you by for a bit linger or you may decide not to do the work and spend the money on a new car. The old car will still work but not last as long as spending the money to buy a new one.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. It appears that they did not try to resolve the issue, but to justify their absurd interpretation of a contract for a job that they recommend against doing.

Quality1st is grossly misrepresenting the circumstances and their behavior. First, they bid a job site unseen (using old 2013 information). It is not unreasonable to expect a licensed professional to not dust off 2 year old information to bid a job to refurbish the outside of a cabin. I assumed that they had as I would expect any reasonable company to have done. That was my mistake.

Review: We have not received our deposit back for a job that was cancelled due to questionable workmanship. This company has had our money since May of 2013. Here is the background. On May 6, 2013 we received a bid to replace two concrete sections that are cracked on our front driveway at [redacted] from Quality 1st Custom Builder for work to be done in August. Quality First pressured us that we needed to put down half the money so they could even get us scheduled. We paid half per the proposal request in May of 2013. We had to push out the work on the concrete because of another unsatisfactory job this company did on a roof repair at the same address in July. The contractor removed red roof shingles and replaced them with charcoal black shingles. So our roof was half red and half black. They never told us about the issue; we had to discover it on our own. We were concerned with lack of work supervision and general workmanship that was done on the roof and this was communicated to Quality First. We told them if you fix the roof the way it should be done, we would proceed with the driveway concrete job. They were notified in July of 2013 that if the work was not done satisfactory, we would be cancelling the concrete job. My husband had to call numerous times to get the roof issue resolved and rescheduled. He had a verbal discussion with [redacted] at Quality First and he told my husband that they would be able to match the existing roof. We delayed the work on the driveway until we could inspect the revised roof work. Labor Day weekend we inspected the revised roof repair. The roof is still two different shades of red even after [redacted] told my husband they would match the color of the existing shingles. My husband tried to resolve the issue with [redacted] and [redacted], the owner. Since we were unsuccessful, we cancelled the concrete job out per our earlier communication. [redacted] has still not paid us back as of today. I had a conversation with him today and he said he will be holding 15% of our down payment for cancelling the job. We cancelled the job because they were not able to meet their committment on the roof repair. We would like our full deposit back for the concrete job and the roof done properly to match the roof like [redacted] promised.Desired Settlement: Full refund for the deposit we put on the concrete. I would also like the roof shingles to be replaced to match the same color of the existing roof with new ice shield put under the shingles, as the other ice shield will already have numerous nail holes.

Business

Response:

Today I received your letter and the complaint. I guess I should start off by saying that even though I own both companies they are completely separate companies. They have separate- Revdex.com accounts, DUNS #'s, contracting license #'s, bank accounts, Federal ID #'s, and Corporations. She has combined two separate issues and one should not affect the other. The first part is about a concrete repair. She states that the contract was delayed until Labor day weekend 9-2-13 when they could inspect the roof and then trying to resolve the issues with us which is untrue since they canceled it on 8-18-13 before the inspection, you'll find attached a copy of their email canceling. We also had this work scheduled last year and they canceled then also, see attached letter we sent them with dates. We have sent a check for $1384.97 which is the deposit amount of $1629.38 - $244.41 check # [redacted] sent 9-19-13 for incurred costs of rescheduling and canceling, Includes- our office time, suppliers and subcontractors. This deduction was not a "cancellation fee" it was for incurred costs. Other incorrect information from them is that we did not receive their deposit until 6-5-13 not May as stated and we never "pressure" people into giving us a deposit. It is simply company policy that we do put people into our schedule without a deposit and contract to confirm work to be done. The roof repair work in question that they say was done in July was completed 13'. The second part is about roof repair issues. We did screw up and install black shingles instead of red ones because our office had ordered the wrong color by mistake and the workers just installed what they were told without questioning the wrong color. This should have never happened but we did correct the issue at our expense when we were informed about it. Our records do show that they called us several times but each time they were told the schedule to fix our mistake and then they would call again before it was done. We put the closest color available to what they had since their original color was discontinued. They state that they want "the roof done to match the roof like [redacted] promised", well [redacted] told them it would match just like we had told them.......as close as possible. In the written bid proposal that they signed and agreed to it is clearly written "Color will not match as shingles on house are a discontinued color." and it was then restated to them 3 more times in the computer generated estimate and 2 invoices.....please see attached copies. Not only was their color discontinued which makes it impossible to match but every shingle manufactures states not to use shingles from different lots (production dates) because the colors can be off a little bit even in the exact same shingle one month later. We've explained this to them and asked them to call suppliers or the manufacturer to verify this instead of taking our word for it and they don't seem to understand or haven't tried to find out for them selves. Part of the confusion is that we did a repair before for them on their front porch and they are happy with it because they think that it matches. Because of the different slopes and the angles it looks like the repair we did on the front porch matches the original shingles on the steeper part of the house but if you climb up on the roof and look at it, they don't match. So they think that we are screwing them on the back repair because it doesn't match but neither does the repair we did before or the repair someone else did on their front roof. In summary. They were told in writing that the shingles for the roof repair would not match since their original shingle was discontinued and they had us do the work and are now unhappy with the color match.....NOT the quality of workmanship. The roof repairs were done corrected and installed correctly.....and have no bearings on the concrete repair. The concrete repair was canceled and refunded in full last year after delays and then again delayed and then canceled again this year by the owner.....the $244.41 was kept to cover accrued costs. Thank you,[redacted]President

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The response from the business did not propose any resolution to our complaint. Below are some issues with [redacted]'s inaccurate statements.1. We never hired this company last year to do concrete work, so therefore we never cancelled the work last year. We cancelled the work this year because of the emails attached and our conversation with [redacted] and [redacted] about how we questioned how they were able to match the roof repair that was done last year perfectly. After the black shingles were installed on our red roof, we were very clear that the concrete work would be cancelled if the roof was not done to satisfaction and matching like the repair from the prior year. [redacted] told my husband on the phone that they will match the back roof repair with the same color just like the front roof repair that was done last year. The written estimate meant nothing at this time, as it had already been misrepresented.2. We did inspect the roof in July. My husband walked the roof and the front repair done last year matched our existing roof perfectly. [redacted]'s statement about the pitch is incorrect. We also had a roofer of 20+ years look at the roof and he said that there is no reason why the repair cannot match our common color. He was quite amused by the black shingles on a red roof.3. The attached email says that they are charging us a cancellation fee; however, no where in writing does it say that we would be charged for cancelling work. We gave fair notice; there were no incurred costs to [redacted]. We told Quality Last that we would cancel the work if the second attempt of the roof matching was not to our satisfaction as early as July--see email. In August when we received a picture of the roof half red and half deep red with a clear difference, we notified them in writing of our dissatisfaction and that the concrete work would not be done by them. We did not want to deal with another 4+months of trying to rectify more unsupervised work. 4. [redacted] has not taken into account all the time, effort, and frustration that we have gone through due to his lack of customer service and inablity to meet the customer's need. He was unavailable all summer, did not supervise the first repair, or the second screw up. We had to call, email a dozen times and even had to stop into Quality Last's office in person to try to get them to fix the roof. We are still owed the 15% that [redacted] kept for his so-called incurred costs. And we also want a full refund for the $800+ shoddy roof job, as we will need to hire a capable roofer that actually cares about his customers and his reputation as a contractor. Regards,[redacted]

Business

Response:

In response to the customers last response.Item 1- I have attached the copy of the signed contract for the work to be done last year. The contract was with the neighbor who was responsible for the damage. I personnally spoke many times whith [redacted] the owner and had a few emails but don't have those records being a year old. His main concerns were not doing the work while he had renters there and that his information wasn't originally on the contract. I added the info so that he could also sign on the contract but he never did and we had to finally cancell the contract and refund the money. Please see last 2 attachments.The shingles do match as close as possible as stated in writing in the contract and are the same brand and color of shingle as used in the front repair. We asked that a 3rd party unbaised person be contacted about the fact that her shingles can not match perfectly due to color changes and they have not done so.Item 2- The shingles don't match perfectly and I've attached a picture to show the difference, 3rd attachment. The 2nd attachment is to show the back repair we did with the same shingles but they are darker and the 3rd attachment is a pic showing the other repair someone else did on their front porch that does not match perfectly.Item 3- There is no legal reason to cancell the contract since it was written in the contract that the shingles would not match, and they haven't verfied this fact for themselfs.She states that there are no incurred costs but the hours that my staff and I have dealt with this cost me hourly pay, taxes, and workmans compensation. There have been several hours put into this costing us money and without due cause for cancellation we have kept a very small amount which at this point doesn't cover all costs.Item 4- I as the owner seldom supervise work on the job and have people to do that and I did not supervise last years repair that they are happy with. We did mess up by putting on black shingles and corrected that at our expense. All the other time they have spent is not due to poor workmanship but by them not understanding their written contract that states that the shingles will not match or by taking the time to verify with a third unbaised party such as roofing suppliers or the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.We care very much about our reputation and in 17+ years of roofing in this area this is the first complaint to the Revdex.com because we do take care of our mistakes. The workmanship is excellent, unfortunatley we don't have controll over color matching which is her complaint.....there is no "shoddy roof job".In summary- we have been fair and honest and installed the work to the highest of workmanship standards. We can not controll color matches and have asked them to verify this insteed of it only being "our word". We did incurr cost and at this point have lost money on this project. There is no legal reason to cancell the contract so we had no need to refund any money but did refund the majority of their deposit for the porpuse of good will. What else can we do when someone is simply upset despite our best efforts and the facts. Our 17 yr track record of now complaints shows my points.Thank you,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Still have not received refund and still have a roof with two very different colors.Regards,[redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc.

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc. Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Contractors - General, Kitchen Remodeling, Garage Builders, Contractor - Remodel & Repair, Kitchen & Bath - Design & Remodeling

Address: 747 E White Mountain Blvd # 2, Pinetop, Arizona, United States, 85935-5003

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

www.quality1stcustombuilders.com

This site can’t be reached

Shady, yet now dead: once upon a time this website was reported to be associated with Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc., but after several inspections we’ve come to the conclusion that this domain is no longer active.



Add contact information for Quality 1st Custom Builders, Inc.

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated