Sign in

R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers

R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers Reviews (24)

I am rejecting this response because: this company is very unprofessional and I will never refer them to anyone for the futureThe way the individuals speak on the phone- very unprofessional and not willing to accommodate in any way, so dont sit there and lie that you were willing to work something out with usWe had to drop an additional 2,to get our fence fixedIf their attitude, mission, and professionalism was there, we would probably think about it, but with someone with such an ugly and unprofessional attitude and demenor, the busniess will not go farTake care and do not try to sit their and [redacted] now

Revdex.com,Thank you for garnering a response by Borg Fence & Decks/Lifescaping Outdoors (Natco Pregra Inc.)I am rejecting their responseBelow is my response to the points they made: The gate latch issue was emailed to their employee, [redacted] *., on 5/12/2016, the day after installation, at the same time as the initial notification of water at the base of the back gate fence postI attempted to confirm receipt of that email by [redacted] approximately 4:30pm but was told she had already left the office and no one else could confirm receipt I called again at the start of business the next morning and confirmed receipt of the email by ***, who forwarded it to their office manager, [redacted] That day I had conversations about the latch, in addition to the more time sensitive matter of the water leak, with office manager [redacted] I was told by [redacted] that the two workers sent to the site to look into the water around the gate post were not ones who would also address the gate latchNo other Borg/Lifescaping employees were sent to site for the post or gate latch issues after the day they removed of the post, 5/13/The fence was paid for in full when due, at the conclusion of work on the day installation, 5/11/The next morning I received an email from [redacted] ***, their Contract Administrator/Accounts Receivable, thanking me for the payment and with an attached confirmation as receipt of the 5/11/invoice marked “PAID 05/12/2016” The Revdex.com has been provided both the original email notification of the front gate latch and water pooling at the back gate post, as well as the marked paid invoice as receipt I’ve been told by multiple plumbers that to dent and crease a pipe as it was, it had to have been hit with a great amount of force This response to the Revdex.com (and their prior response to the Contractor’s State License Board) are the ONLY times any Borg/Lifescaping employee or the president admitted anything about contact with the pipe under the fence postPlumbing experts I subsequently brought in evaluated that the pipe for which Borg now claims to have “gingerly hand dug the hole” (from their response to the CSLB) and then “touched” (from this response) definitely needed to be replaced because of the denting/creasing damage and compromised stateFurthermore, plumbers I had on site also stated that to be dented to that extent, the impact would have jarred the attached pipe enough to cause the leaking in my water line after fence installation I initiated leak detection also and it was determined to be much closer to the post location than their leak detection markedBased on conflicting information conveyed during conversations with the plumber they hired and the leak detection personnel sent out on their request, I do not trust their reports(Those reports were finally provided to me in response to my CSLB complaint and received after filing this Revdex.com complaint.) They offered to reinstall the post and gate before the leak was fixed and in the exact same area without disclosing they dented and creased the pipeOnce I discovered the damage they caused and that the post was not installed correctly, there was no way I would be having them reinstall the post in the same location above the creased water main and at an incorrect depth Discovering facts they didn’t disclose to me, when they had every opportunity to at many stages, leads me to think they were hoping to cover up their mistake in an attempt to avoid culpability Contractually, they were obligated to install the posts to a depth of feet, not approximately feet, nor feet unless the hole is widened to an unspecified additional amount (which was not done either) If an installation depth of feet was not possible after observing where the water main was marked, they should have, as fence professionals they were hired to be, come to me at the start of the job and proposed a better solution of a different post hole location Installation of the post with concrete around the water main pipe, as they state, would not have been an acceptable solution either The post cannot physically be put two feet deep because that would’ve been directly through the pipeWhen they discovered this, whether it be because of where the city utilities marked lines or when they were digging, they should’ve realized this and come up with a better solutionTheir procedure to install at that location anyway, hit a pipe, not disclose that or have it evaluated by a plumber, then install the post in breech of contract on top of the damage they caused, was unprofessional and negligentI look forward to the investigation by the Contractors State License Board to evaluate this issue further In conclusion, after reading the response by Borg Fence & Decks/Lifescaping Outdoors (Natco Pregra Inc.), I am further baffled at their continued lack of communication, both internally and externally, inaccuracies and overall unprofessional behavior I am rejecting their response and hope you take whatever measures to review their rating, which is among the resolutions I am seekingMany thanks

In response to Mr [redacted] last message,, We respectfully stand by our position and have offered to either replace the boards (which requires dismantling an entire foot section of fence for each board affected to accomplish the repair due to the integrated construction of this style of fence) OR issue a 5% credit on Mr [redacted] portion of the contracted amount, but NOT both As to Mr [redacted] comments regarding conversations between his wife, co worker and Mr [redacted] we feel that a 3rd hand report of a conversation can only lead to misunderstanding and half truths and respectfully ask those comments be disregarded We await Mr [redacted] decision on his preferred option so that we may proceed with the resolution for this projectRespectfully, [redacted] ***

I am rejecting this response because:The information that Borg is suppling is not truthful There are still bolts sticking out above grade They did NOT sand or buff anything *** *** gave the 5% installer discount that was a part of out original contract that was being offered at the time I have emails from BORG acknowledging the "Installers discount" prior to any work being done I have received NOTHING since this poor work was done *** *** did offer $gift card I decline since this is FAR from what I signed a contract for I signed for the fence to be removed, not part of the fence, not bolts visible sticking up from the concrete or being a hazard to anyone walking barefoot This install and removal has seriously devalued the pool area of my home Please see the attached email correspondence starting March 3, 2015, there is the 5% Installers discount that they were suppose to give The discount was not apart of a botched job, it was a promotion *** *** and Borg were running

*** ***, administrative manager, spoke with customer this morning and agreed to refund the $that was mistakenly overcharge and continue with his scheduled installation for Monday May 18thWe have resolved the issues with customer as of Thursday May 14thPlease contact customer to confirm
and close out this complaint. Feel free to contact *** *** ** *** * *** thank you

I will be expecting them Lifescaping at 8am on 11/11/The $dollars has been paid by *** ***It is in a holding position until the job is completed. The Balance of $will be charged to the *** *** on 11/11/16 when the job has been completed accuratelyI will need to know the names of the individuals persons from Lifescaping I will be expecting on my property on the 11/11/16.*** ***

Thank you for allowing us to respond with our side of this issue. We appreciate the work that the Revdex.com does to resolve these types of customer issues. We followed up with the customer, reviewed the actual contract, and talked to our employees involved in the complaint. Our contract
clearly states, in places, that the fence height is to be foot finished. In one area, it defines this as “feet tall”. When building a foot finish fence with lattice, the board portion of the fence is constructed to feet height; and the foot of framed lattice is added to the top to meet the total finished height of feet. While, in retrospect, the client may have wanted a foot finish fence, we priced out and constructed the fence the customer specified when signing the contract. With regard to the statement that our employee was rude, and insulted the customer by suggesting they do a google lookup on fence height terms, we were trying to offer the customer a different venue for the definition, since they were not accepting the definition from us. It is never our intent to be rude to a client. Finally, we offered to change the height of the fence with a signed change order for an additional charge, however the customer was not interested in this option. Thank you again for your assistance in working with our client to resolve this complaint

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me providing they actually follow through with sending a repair person. It took multiple attempts before they actually returned my phone calls

I am rejecting this response because:  Borg does not acknowledge the fact that their sales representative failed to include in the sales contract the condition that was agreed to orally.  As a result, the fence was constructed improperly.  The offer of $400 does not rectify the mismatched fence height and design.  I have a difficult time justifying the problem with my next door neighbor with whom I share the fence

There are so many inaccuracies in Ms. [redacted]’s statement, that it would require too much time and require to much detail to accurately depict the situation.  There are a few points that need to be addressed.The owner of the company resides in Rhode Island and has no day to day input in the...

business here in Sacramento.  We have a President and an Operations manager in Sacramento.  During the timeframe of the installation and Ms. [redacted]’s initial contact with the company, the president was in our LA office.  The Operation’s manager is most likely whom she spoke with.  He is no longer with our company.  At about that time he left our employ due to an illness in his family which is what we believe she is referring to in her statement. If he was rude to her, then we owe Ms. [redacted] an apology for that conversation.  Upon learning of the concerns regarding the nails and gaps in the fence, our president, [redacted] arranged to meet with Ms. [redacted] on a Saturday to perform a site visit. She opened up the conversation with a complaint about “shoddy work” compared to her last fence job with us. After being shown the job we had done on our previous installation on her property, he did not say the job was “too good”, he said that the crew had overlapped the boards “too much” and that the spacing was not ideal as we used more boards than we normally would have.  She continued to go on about shoddy workmanship as Ms. [redacted] showed Mr. [redacted] the areas of her concern which were nails on a kickboard which are toe-nailed into a post.  She hadn’t noticed that on the previous install, because her side of the fence was on the high-side of the fence and boards are toe nailed on the low-side of a fence (her neighbor’s side).  For the line of fence which they were addressing, her property is on the low- side so the nails are visible.  There were also a few bowed boards to which Mr. [redacted] said we would add more nails to fix the gapping.  There were a few overshot brad nails to which Mr. [redacted] said he would have them addressed and there was a board that was not overlapping enough that Mr. [redacted] agreed to overlap more.  She wasn’t satisfied with the answers and continued to rant on about the “shoddy workmanship”.  Matching her volume, Mr. [redacted] asked her to stop saying that the work was shoddy because our crews are hardworking and very good at their craft.  That inflamed her further and she raised her voice further and wouldn’t let Mr. [redacted] get a work in edgewise.  She continued to complain about the workmanship and the inconvenience she felt she been made to endure.  Mr. [redacted]’s response to the inconvenience was that we had tried to be respectful of her time frame, but that the hard digs, (which we didn’t charge her for- normally $75/post hole) had caused the project to take longer than expected.  Voices continued to raise and Mr. [redacted] asked her to stop yelling at him. She was derogatory and punitive in every statement she made and showed no intent of having a professional dialogue to address the situation.  Instead she chose to attack Mr. [redacted], the crew and company for a few minor issues that were agreed to be taken care of despite her attitude.  The abuse of Mr. [redacted] reached a level that was intolerable and he refused to continue the abusive conversation.   As he was leaving the property, he was texting messages to the neighbor to see if he could perform the repairs from his side of the fence. This is a warranty issue and we’ve agreed to address the areas of concerns where appropriate.

Thank for the opportunity to respond to this customer complaint.  We would like to address what we believe are inaccuracies in the customers’ statement and then suggest resolutions to the issues.  Our contract and supporting disclosures, which we have attached, clearly states that wood is...

a natural product, that it will have cracks, knot holes, and color variations.  We inspect the wood when we receive it from the mill to ensure it is on grade.  Our crews are well aware of the high quality of the wood we use.  When the President of the company did a visual inspection he did not refer to the condition of the wood as “wear and tear”; he referred to it as the normal appearance of wood, a natural product.  When the President of the company initially talked to the customer, he stated that the fix for the nails would be to clip them with a pair of pliers, and that if it was urgent for the safety of their child, they could do it themselves.  When he came to do the inspection, he came with the tools necessary to address the nails sticking out.    Unfortunately the conversation became heated and non-productive and he chose to leave the customer’s property rather than continue to argue.  With regard to the footprint in the concrete, the surface of the concrete around the post will be rough and may have a partial print from the crew tamping it down.  This is usually not noticeable since dirt covers it.  We would also like to note that the two neighbors who share this common fence are completely satisfied and have already paid.   The customer would like us to replace 50 boards with minor, normal flaws.  We are willing to replace the 5 boards we saw that have the potential to compromise the integrity of the fence over time.  In addition, we are willing, as we originally agreed to, to deal with the brad nails that are sticking out, and to add concrete to cover the footprint.  The other option we are offering the customer is to leave the fence as it is, and discount his portion of the price of the fence, $5229.00, by 5%, reducing his payment to $4968.00.  We look forward to hearing the customer’s decision regarding these 2 options.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the client’s rebuttal to our response.  We are not exactly sure what the customer is seeking as final resolution in the case.  We have made it very clear that we are willing to take care of any gate issues that exist as a result of the excavation of the gate post and subsequent digging that occurred while we tried to identify alleged leaks that we caused.  We are certainly willing to set the post and hang the gate to complete the job.  We are also willing to replace the latch, if it is faulty, with one where the holes for a padlock line up more accurately.  This is not in contention.Where the concern lies is that we are not willing, nor are we going to further entertain, any allegations of the clients attempt to liable us for damages that we did not cause.  We have presented verifiable documents from licensed contractors to refute the clients allegations.  We are not liable for the water leak on her property, the correction of that leak, or the replacement of her water pipes.  In addition, we are concerned that the customer has demonstrated her willingness to stretch the truth for her benefit and we are seeking legal counsel on how to stop her continued actions from slandering our company’s reputation.   Once the client agrees that the ONLY issue that remains is the repair of the gate and she agrees that she will cease and desist on all other allegations we will gladly return to restore the gate to its original state.

We have been in contact with this customer since she let us know of her concern with her fence. Per her request, she wanted the fence line moved 3-4' from the original fence line, which by doing so would leave old footings in the ground. We addressed the old footings like we normally would, by...

cutting them to grade, or below grade when possible. It is not possible for us to remove the footings completely without damaging her existing concrete. Customer was not satisfied with the way the old footings looked, and in an attempt to meet her expectations, we went out a second time to smooth out the footings - we buffed them out to make sure there were no rough or sharp edges sticking out. She is unhappy with the look of her concrete, which we informed her she would need to address that on her own, as she had requested to move the existing fence line in the first place. We've done our best to deliver the best service we can, but at this point, the customer's expectations are not aligned with what we can do.

Borg Fence & Decks welcomes the opportunity to respond to this complaint. While we will briefly address each of the issues here, we will also forward to the Revdex.com the complete package we sent to the CSLB and to the client in response to her complaint with them. This is the first time we have been...

told about the gate latch issue. We would be glad to address that for our client under the terms of our warranty once we have an understanding of how we are proceeding with her other concerns. She has not paid for the fence and therefore there is no warranty currently in place. We used the appropriate hand digging procedures to dig the fence post hole where the water pipes were marked. We exposed the pipe, and touched it; however we did not break it. This was confirmed by the leak detection company and the plumber. When informed of the leak, we hired a licensed plumber, and they hired a leak detection company, both at our expense, to locate any leak. We also removed the gate and post, and are willing to reinstall them, also at no additional cost to the customer. With regard to the depth of the posthole, it is true that the standard hole depth is 2’. However, it is acceptable construction practice to widen the hole to offset a lack depth when digging deeper would be an issue. To have dug under and around the pipe, installed the post to a depth of 2’ and poured concrete under and around the post would have created the potential for more damage to the pipe. We have provided the customer a complete copy of the response to her complaint to the CSLB, including all reports and correspondence from the plumber and leak detection specialist who examined her property. In addition, we will provide her a copy of this response.

In response to Mr. [redacted] last message,, We respectfully stand by our position and have offered to either replace the 4 boards (which requires dismantling an entire 8 foot section of fence for each board affected to accomplish the repair due to the integrated construction of this style of fence) OR issue a 5% credit on Mr. [redacted] portion of the contracted amount, but NOT both.   As to Mr. [redacted] comments regarding conversations between his wife, co worker and Mr. [redacted] we feel that a 3rd hand report of a conversation can only lead to misunderstanding and half truths and respectfully ask those comments be disregarded.  We await Mr. [redacted] decision on his preferred option so that we may proceed with the resolution for this project. Respectfully, [redacted]

Revdex.com,Thank you for garnering a response by Borg Fence & Decks/Lifescaping Outdoors (Natco Pregra Inc.). I am rejecting their response. Below is my response to the points they made: The gate latch issue was emailed to their employee, [redacted]., on 5/12/2016, the day after installation, at the same time as the initial notification of water at the base of the back gate fence post. I attempted to confirm receipt of that email by [redacted] approximately 4:30pm but was told she had already left the office and no one else could confirm receipt.  I called again at the start of business the next morning and confirmed receipt of the email by [redacted], who forwarded it to their office manager, [redacted]. That day I had conversations about the latch, in addition to the more time sensitive matter of the water leak, with office manager [redacted]. I was told by [redacted] that the two workers sent to the site to look into the water around the gate post were not ones who would also address the gate latch. No other Borg/Lifescaping employees were sent to site for the post or gate latch issues after the day they removed of the post, 5/13/2016. The fence was paid for in full when due, at the conclusion of work on the day installation, 5/11/2016. The next morning I received an email from [redacted], their Contract Administrator/Accounts Receivable, thanking me for the payment and with an attached confirmation as receipt of the 5/11/2016 invoice marked “PAID 05/12/2016”.  The Revdex.com has been provided both the original email notification of the front gate latch and water pooling at the back gate post, as well as the marked paid invoice as receipt.   I’ve been told by multiple plumbers that to dent and crease a pipe as it was, it had to have been hit with a great amount of force.  This response to the Revdex.com (and their prior response to the Contractor’s State License Board) are the ONLY times any Borg/Lifescaping employee or the president admitted anything about contact with the pipe under the fence post. Plumbing experts I subsequently brought in evaluated that the pipe for which Borg now claims to have “gingerly hand dug the hole” (from their response to the CSLB) and then “touched” (from this response) definitely needed to be replaced because of the denting/creasing damage and compromised state. Furthermore, plumbers I had on site also stated that to be dented to that extent, the impact would have jarred the attached pipe enough to cause the leaking in my water line after fence installation.  I initiated leak detection also and it was determined to be much closer to the post location than their leak detection marked. Based on conflicting information conveyed during conversations with the plumber they hired and the leak detection personnel sent out on their request, I do not trust their reports. (Those reports were finally provided to me in response to my CSLB complaint and received after filing this Revdex.com complaint.)  They offered to reinstall the post and gate before the leak was fixed and in the exact same area without disclosing they dented and creased the pipe. Once I discovered the damage they caused and that the post was not installed correctly, there was no way I would be having them reinstall the post in the same location above the creased water main and at an incorrect depth.  Discovering facts they didn’t disclose to me, when they had every opportunity to at many stages, leads me to think they were hoping to cover up their mistake in an attempt to avoid culpability.   Contractually, they were obligated to install the posts to a depth of 2 feet, not approximately 2 feet, nor 2 feet unless the hole is widened to an unspecified additional amount (which was not done either).  If an installation depth of 2 feet was not possible after observing where the water main was marked, they should have, as fence professionals they were hired to be, come to me at the start of the job and proposed a better solution of a different post hole location.  Installation of the post with concrete around the water main pipe, as they state, would not have been an acceptable solution either.  The post cannot physically be put two feet deep because that would’ve been directly through the pipe. When they discovered this, whether it be because of where the city utilities marked lines or when they were digging, they should’ve realized this and come up with a better solution. Their procedure to install at that location anyway, hit a pipe, not disclose that or have it evaluated by a plumber, then install the post in breech of contract on top of the damage they caused, was unprofessional and negligent. I look forward to the investigation by the Contractors State License Board to evaluate this issue further.   In conclusion, after reading the response by Borg Fence & Decks/Lifescaping Outdoors (Natco Pregra Inc.), I am further baffled at their continued lack of communication, both internally and externally, inaccuracies and overall unprofessional behavior.  I am rejecting their response and hope you take whatever measures to review their rating, which is among the resolutions I am seeking. Many thanks.

I am rejecting this response because: this company is very unprofessional and I will never refer them to anyone for the future. The way the individuals speak on the phone- very unprofessional and not willing to accommodate in any way, so dont sit there and lie that you were willing to work something out with us. We had to drop an additional 2,000 to get our fence fixed. If their attitude, mission, and professionalism was there, we would probably think about it, but with someone with such an ugly and unprofessional attitude and demenor, the busniess will not go far. Take care and do not try to sit their and ** now.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. We decided to accept the 5% discount ($4,968). We are very disappointed and will not be satisfied if [redacted] will only change 4 boards and have us still pay the whole amount which in fact there are more other boards with small cracks at the time of the installment. It does not make sense and fair at all to have us pay the whole amount. To not prolong this issue and it's been very disappointing dealing with this company we decided to accept the 5% and not deal with them anymore. As I have mentioned before, we have no problem paying as long as it is fair. I will pay the amount due ASAP.  Thank you Revdex.com

For the past couple of days, Operations Manager and Mr. [redacted] have been in communication. Mr [redacted] called called in today and spoke with [redacted]; she explained to him that his repair will be scheduled for a repair crew and as of today, we are still working on routing his repair. Once we have an...

available crew, we will contact Mr [redacted] to advise him on the date.

Our contract with Ms. [redacted] dated April 11, 2016 was for the sale and installation of artificial grass and totaled $4,243.00 (See Attachment A; we redacted the credit card information contained on the contract for confidentiality purposes).  The terms of the contract were that payment was due...

upon completion.  We performed the installation on May 2, 2016.  Our crew walked the job with Ms. [redacted] and she was satisfied with the project and signed a job satisfaction form saying that she had no issues and that she would recommend us to friends, family and co-workers.  (See Attachment B). We attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] to collect payment in full, as per the contract, but were unable to reach Ms. [redacted].  Finally on May 5 Ms. [redacted] contacted our office and stated that she had an issue with a seam in the turf and she wanted us to address that.  We told Ms. [redacted] that we would address the seam issue.  Such an issue we explained is an after installation repair matter covered under warranty that we will send a crew out to address and correct without charge.  We also let Ms. [redacted] know that payment for the original installation was due in full upon completion.  Ms. [redacted] did not however provide payment.  We nonetheless scheduled a crew to address her issue with the seam, as this is a separate matter from the payment of the project upon completion.  We attempted to schedule the repair for several weeks leaving numerous messages for Ms. [redacted].  Finally on June 2, we were able to speak with Ms. [redacted] to schedule the installation which was scheduled for June 18, 2016.  After requesting payment once again, Ms. [redacted] agreed to pay $2,000 of the $4,243.00 due.  Payment was made via Ms. [redacted]’s [redacted] card that she provided to us.  On June 18, 2016 our crew arrived at Ms. [redacted]’s home to address the seam issue but Ms. [redacted] was not home.  After several attempts again to reach Ms. [redacted] to schedule another visit after she did not show for the first appointment, we were able to arrange a visit by our regional operations manager on July 6 so he could assess and address the issue.  Ms. [redacted] once again cancelled that scheduled meeting.  Subsequently, we have continued to contact Ms. [redacted] to arrange a date and time when we can address the seam issue, as well as to attempt to collect the remainder of the payment on the contract but have been unsuccessful. We received notice on August 11, 2016 from our merchant service provider that Ms. [redacted] disputed the $2,000.00 payment she made towards the contract.  We contested this with our merchant services.  At the same time we continued to attempt to reach Ms. [redacted] to schedule a date to address her seam issue. After continued troubles in trying to reach Ms. [redacted] to address her issue and to collect on our project, we were advised to protect ourselves and file a lien.  Subsequently, our merchant services company has credited back Lifescaping the $2,000.00 following their initial investigation but they noted that the matter is still pending finalization. Where we are with this matter is very simple and straightforward.  We are ready to address any issues Ms. [redacted] has with the installation, as we have been since the day we completed the installation.  However, Ms. [redacted] needs to make herself or a representative available and has to be responsive to our attempts to contact her to address such issues.  Also, Ms. [redacted] has to agree to pay us for the outstanding balance on the contract, either $4,243.00 or $2,243.00 depending on the final settlement of the original $2,000.00 credit card charge.  We have been attempting to resolve this matter and collect payment in full since the day we finished the installation.  We hope that Ms. [redacted] will devote the same attention to making herself available so we can resolve this issue.

Check fields!

Write a review of R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers

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

R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: 36598 Fender Ave, Madera, California, United States, 93636-8685

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers.



Add contact information for R. Lacy Interlocking Pavers

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