RCW Design

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Below are our responses, numbered to match paragraphs in the responses provided by Reynolds Custom Woodworking (RCW):
1. The response from RCW is untruthful; RCW did not address their lack of licensure or legality of serving as an unlicensed contractor on any project exceeding $600.
2. RCW confirmed they stated they would obtain permits; RCW did not provided an explanation for why they did not acquire permits. In Dec 2019 ***, *** Twp. Building Inspector, confirmed the code violation for performing work on our home without a permit.
3. The response from RCW is untruthful; RCW has not shared project receipts or documentation for expenditures and/or funds collected despite repeated and ongoing requests. We had a straight materials and labor agreement with RCW; for their contractor services, we were to pay 5% on materials and 10% on subcontractor labor. This agreement was followed through 5/19 and multiple incidences of accounting errors, double billing, billing for services not rendered, unapproved additional costs, and quote inaccuracies were detected. After 5/19, RCW refused to provide receipts or documentation of expenditures despite repeated requests. Conservatively, we have questions on over $12,000 in undocumented expenses; RCW is unable or unwilling to provide receipts or documentation for these or any other funds collected (for examples of billing discrepancies see #4 for non-payment of bills; #5 for unapproved cost changes; #8 for collecting funds for services not rendered).
4. The response from RCW is untruthful. Without our knowledge and prior to being terminated on 12/4/19, RCW instructed *** Lumber (DL) to place a lien on our home to collect $2,333 for decking material billed to RCW and delivered to our home in 8/19. During an 8/29/19 meeting with RCW and *** (AE) from MB, the upgrade to composite decking material was specifically addressed. It was confirmed and documented by email that same day, that credits from the fireplace install would be used to offset the added cost of composite decking. At a 11/27/19 meeting with RCW and AE, RCW never indicated they had a bill in arrears with DL or that they were unable/unwilling to pay this bill. Since our initial complaint, we learned that prior to being terminated, RCW also contacted ***, instructing them to file a lien against our home for payment of bills RCW was unwilling/unable to pay.
5. The response from RCW is untruthful. Per our agreement with RCW and the Builders Construction Acknowledgment signed by Bruce R on 11/19/18 and submitted to MB, all cost changes needed to be preapproved, documented, and signed by both the builder and borrower. Despite these agreements, RCW repeatedly billed us for unapproved costs. We first encountered unapproved costs in 5/19. At a meeting to resolve this bill (paid 5/21/19), RCW agreed to use a Google Doc to communicate and confirm future cost changes. On 7/30/19, a new invoice was generated with undocumented and unapproved cost changes. After repeated requests to discuss the bill, we employed the assistance of AE at MB to bring RCW to the table to discuss billing discrepancies (among many issues). AE oversaw a meeting on 8/29/19 where we reiterated the need to document cost changes and RCW, again, agreed to use the Google Doc. On 11/15/19, RCW requested the final draw with no accounting updates nor a final invoice. The final invoice was first made available on 11/26/19, when we were again presented with undocumented and unapproved cost changes totaling almost $14,000. Despite multiple discussions, at no time did RCW get appropriate documentation for pre-approval of cost changes (via the Google Doc or any other method) nor maintain current and accurate invoices (in QuickBooks or any other format).
6. RCW confirmed they performed unlicensed and unpermitted electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work. RCW did not address transferring >$5000 designated for licensed and skilled subcontractors (***; ***( CHP); ***; and ***), to unqualified and unlicensed RCW employees. RCW did not address restitution for poor workmanship that did not meet industry standards (e.g., dimmer lights with incorrect wiring; tile with excessive lippage and jagged/flaked/chipped edges; and wood flooring gaps >1/4 inch). We provided RCW multiple opportunities to fix these issues and RCW declined to address the lights, made 3 failed attempts to improve tile installation, and made an unacceptable offer to revisit wood flooring issues in six months after we had paid in full for the project.
7. The response from RCW is untruthful. We spoke to *** (owner ***) and he indicated he never approved of nor was aware that RCW submitted his information to MB. MB was unaware *** was no longer the builder and his name is still affiliated with the loan. We talked with the *** Twp. Building Inspector, who informed us that RCW applied for a building permit (covering just the addition and deck) using invalid license numbers and then submitted the application using ***'s license. *** sent a registered letter to the Building Inspector requesting his name be removed from the permit and subsequently withdrew from the project. RCW did not inform us that they had obtained another builder (***) to replace *** until after *** started work on the addition (*** obtained a permit for the addition on 6/26/19). We only learned of this change after questioning Bruce R on 6/29/19.
8. The response from RCW is untruthful. RCW collected $800 in 1/19 and $400 in 4/19 specific to obtaining permits. On 6/19/19 Bruce R provided MB with a full unconditional waiver of lien for permits. As of 6/19/19 no permits had been obtained for any element of the renovation or construction on our home.
9. The response from RCW is untruthful. RCW was untimely during the entire project and consistently missed deadlines. They were not on track toward completion with major items remaining incomplete through 12/4/19 when we terminated them as our contractor. We mentioned these issues on multiple occasions, including: grouting for tile installed in 4/19; damaged/faulty cabinetry installed in 5/19 and paid in full for >6 months; electrical work for dimmable lights in kitchen dating back to 6/19; roof/gutter issue dating back to 7/19; surround, painting, and mantel for a fireplace installed in 8/19; and an incomplete corner on a deck installed in early 9/19. RCW requested a final draw on 11/15/19 with no plan for completing the remaining work, leaving us vulnerable to a fully paid but partially completed project. RCW pushed for incomplete/faulty work to be paid before it was completed, double billed us for items paid in full, and did not address punch list items in a time frame that allowed for completion prior to final loan disbursement.
10. The response from RCW is untruthful. Basement water damage and mold growth resulted from having no seal between the addition and home and non-functioning drainage of foundation trench. We engaged *** Remediation to address the mold growth, who contacted RCW on our behalf for payment as RCW was not responding to our calls and texts. In 10/19, we received a quote from RCW to fix the basement paint and trim, which was to be paid entirely by us with no allowance to cover flood damage. RCW had not addressed this issue as of 12/4/19 when we terminated them as our contractor.
11. The response from RCW is untruthful. The frame for the wood-burning fireplace required a rebuild on four occasions due to RCW's violations of code or manufacturer requirements. We engaged CHP (installer), *** (fireplace manufacturer), and the inspector on multiple occasions to reiterate to RCW the requirements for safe installation. RCW was informed of these issues prior to each rebuild of the framing yet continued to not meet specifications. We and CHP were pressured to continue in violation of installation recommendations, resulting in combative calls and discussions, extended work shutdowns, and additional fees for RCW labor to fix their mistakes. This issue first arose in early 7/19. The last of four required rebuilds arose in late 10/19 and resulted in a work stoppage for all of 11/19. During this time we experienced considerable pressure to accept substandard and unsafe work, as a final draw had been requested and the end of the loan period was imminent. As of 12/4/19 the fireplace was still not installed correctly.

On 12/19/19 we received a registered letter from RCW dated 12/16/19, which was sent after we submitted the Revdex.com complaint and had paid $9,700 to cover RCW's unpaid bills and avoid liens. RCW letter included a bill for undocumented additional costs and an offer to "cure" the poor workmanship. Neither the issues raised in the Revdex.com complaint nor desired resolutions were addressed in the letter or

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We terminated Reynolds Custom Woodworking (RCW), Bruce R, and Matt R due to their illegal, unethical, and unprofessional activity relative to the renovation of our home. We terminated RCW when we learned they had left us vulnerable to being legally and financially liable for: faulty, unpermitted, and unlicensed work; unpaid subcontractors with RCW accounts in arrears; pending liens against our home; an incomplete and poorly executed renovation; and unsafe work requiring a significant outlay of funds to meet code. Nothing in the response from RCW indicates a genuine attempt to work with us or to mitigate the financial and legal liabilities now present as a direct result of their activity in our home. RCW has made no attempt to reconcile the unpaid subcontractors with the over $130K they have collected from us. Although they have collected funds towards these subcontractor unpaid invoices, they have made no effort to make restitution or assure payments. While optimistic they would endeavor to resolve some issues included in the complaint, we have no evidence they have made or will make a genuine attempt to do so. As such, we do not accept their response as a resolution to the complaint.

We have detailed our complaint in the prior iterations, providing dates and specific details to substantiate our claims. Where germane, we have paperwork, photographs, and records verifying our assertions and can provide witnesses who were present for critical actions and discussions. We have limited access to financial files without a subpoena, but a forensic accounting from the materials in our possession supports the financial claims in the original complaint and subsequent rebuttals to RCW. In all areas of our complaint, we have made every attempt to accurately reflect the specifics of what occurred over the last 18 months working with RCW, Bruce R, and Matt R.

We do want to make one correction to our prior complaint. This relates to ***, and his actions once he learned that his builder's license was being used by Bruce R to procure a permit. *** did not ever intend to allow his license to be used by unlicensed contractors. This is a violation of Occupational Code: Act 299, Section 2411 (j). He was concerned when he learned Bruce R attempted to do this, and called the *** Twp. Building Inspector, to make sure this permit was not granted. He did not know his credentials had been used with *** Bank. We were in error in our first rebuttal to indicate a registered letter was sent to the *** Twp. Building Inspector; this was a misunderstanding on our part. The communication between *** and the *** Twp. Building Inspector was by a phone call.

In their response to the initial complaint and subsequent rebuttals, RCW, Bruce Reynolds, and Matt R indicated they knowingly engaged in illegal, unethical, and/or unprofessional activity. We address the most egregious issues below:

1. Working as an unlicensed contractor: RCW admits to knowingly and willingly serving as unlicensed contractors on our project. In their second rebuttal, they state "RCW did express to the *** that we would be a general contractor on their project and did not have a license." This is a violation of Occupational Code: Act 299, Section 2403.
2. Aiding and abetting unlicensed activity: RCW admits to knowingly performing illegal, unlicensed, and unpermitted work. In the first rebuttal they stated, "Reynolds Custom Woodworking did wire a small portion of the renovation on the existing structure without a permit and does no (sic) have a license to do so." The "small proportion" includes: moving and adding lights and outlets throughout the kitchen, living room, halls, new laundry, and new bath; installing wiring for or rewiring a microwave, double oven, cooktop, dishwasher, washer and dryer, and kitchen exhaust hood; running a dryer exhaust vent; installing a gas line; etc. RCW collected funds designated for licensed and skilled plumbers and electricians and knowingly transferred these tasks to their unlicensed employees. Subsequent "Special Inspections" by *** County inspectors indicate significant violations of code for mechanical and electrical work. We have to hire licensed professionals to assure our home and family are safe, we can be properly insured, we can pass a building inspection, and we can close our renovation loan. This is a violation of Occupational Code: Act 299, Section 2411 (j).
3. Failure to obtain appropriate permits: RCW confirmed in their first rebuttal they had stated they would get the required permits, "We did indicate that we would be using permits to do renovations on the home." Later in the same rebuttal they acknowledged they failed to do so, "Reynolds Custom Woodworking did wire a small portion of the renovation on the existing structure without a permit and does no (sic) have a license to do so." The *** Twp. Building Inspector, confirmed the code violation for performing work on our home without appropriate permits (both electrical and mechanical). Alongside paperwork completed by the Building Inspector, we submitted a LARA complaint. Our complaint is under review and is being processed as three separate complaints against Reynolds Custom Woodworking, Bruce R, and Matt R (COMPL-*** - Builders; COMPL-*** - Builders; COMPL-*** - Builders).
4. Failure to have all agreements in writing and signed by all parties: RCW admits to not appropriately documenting added expenses, "There were no signed agreements between Reynolds Custom Woodworking and the client when these changes were made." Despite acknowledging they never followed the appropriate protocol for notifying us of additional costs, RCW continues to insist they are owed substantial amounts of money for items we never approved and bills RCW refuses to share.
5. Failure to ensure written agreements clearly stated terms of transaction: RCW claims we had a fixed-price bid agreement in their second rebuttal. No such agreement or contract was implemented over the 18-month period we worked with RCW. We were never told this was to be a fixed-price agreement and would never have agreed to such given the ambiguity in the estimation process, absence of a written contract, and lack of clarity regarding the project scope. Their claim of a fixed-price bid is inconsistent with the following:
a. An absence of a signed or drafted contract, which we would have required if agreeing to a fixed bid on a $160K project.
b. A lack of documentation supporting this assertion by RCW of a fixed-price bid. (The first documentation of the "bid" assertion was in the second rebuttal to this complaint).
c. The initial transparency, full disclosure of estimates from subcontractors, and conversations regarding costs up through April 2019, when we first noted and documented the occurrence of double billing, billing for items not delivered, and incorrect price modifications.
d. Extensive emails, texts, and detailed conversations we initiated with *** Bank and RCW, during which we operated under the premise and repeatedly and clearly stated we had a cost-plus agreement (materials and labor plus their 5% on materials and 10% on labor).
e. The lack of any attempt on the part of RCW to address, clarify, or rectify this implied fundamental misunderstanding regarding the financial agreement with us.
6. Misrepresentation of Contractor License: The first acknowledgement of the lack of appropriate licensure to serve as contractors was made on the second response from RCW to our complaint. Although they now openly admit they practice as unlicensed contractors, they did not disclose this to us at any time; to *** Bank (for whom they signed documents indicating they would serve as contractors on the project); nor to *** Twp. in June of 2019 when using an inactive license number to apply for a building permit for the addition. As late as December, they were still presenting to us as if they had a contractor's license. Below is an email exchange with RCW on 12/20/19 in response to their registered letter and revised bill (revised bill in RCW rebuttal 2):

Our email: "Before we consider any resolution that involves you doing more work in our home we must see documentation that: 1. You are properly licensed by the State of Michigan to perform the work that needs to be completed. 2. You have all appropriate insurance policies including but not limited to general liability coverage and worker's compensation coverage."

RCW Response: "If you could you (sic) please provide a list of the items that need to be completed at your residence, I would be more than happy to provide you with the information you are requesting."