RDM Development Group

Review: Poorly built house foundation; missing sill plate down central girder beam. And as a result of this poorly constructed foundation the rest of the house suffers with seasonal cracking as opposed to the initial settlement cracking and nail pops; creaking floors all throughout; doors that stick and that do not open/close properly. All of these problems have been ongoing since day one when brand new and I've numerous times to get the builder to fix the problems, all to no avail and he's fought me tooth and nail on every issue.In addition to the missing centerline sill (sole) plate, it is my understanding that the subflooring could have been shored up better by gluing and screwing every 3 inches and it was lucky to have been glued at all or even nailed. Many of the other houses in the neighborhood actually have curling and warped subflooring that pushes up and can be seen through the carpeted areas. The building code needs to adopt changes and updates due to the sandy areas where there's more movement than where there's no sandy ground composition. This is a very common defect in homes built near the ocean and it's going unaddressed and is only a guide at this point for county inspectors to check. And it doesn't even have to be glued or nailed.There's additional evidence of very poor workmanship throughout but most noticeably is the sheet linoleum flooring in the kitchen and the 2 bathrooms - it curls at the edges because it wasn't laid underneath the cabinets, fixtures, doors. This didn't take long to start happening either. And there was the problem with the heat pump in the wintertime when icicles would form on a bad seam in the gutter and then drop onto the blade and freeze the blades so that it wouldn't operate and I believe that caused so much stress that a short while later I had to pay for a replacement condenser but not before having to pay extra high heat bills due to it being on emergency heat. It's just been an ongoing headache, compounded by trying to sell it w/ cracks. Loud sounds ...Desired Settlement: I'd like to be reimbursed the full cost of what I spent on this house that I trusted was going to be built well and that would last for many years to. The amount paid at settlement was $188,000.00 rounded to the nearest dollar.

Business

Response:

We are in receipt of your letters dated 5/20/2014 and 5/21/2014 concerning allegations made by [redacted] related to her home ( "[redacted]") built by ROM, located at the above referenced address.

In speaking to the issues raised by [redacted], it is important to recognize that as of the date of receipt of your correspondence, [redacted] has lived in the home for nearly 12 years, having settled on her home on August 5, 2002.

At the time of this house's construction, the operable Building Code in both Sussex County and the Town of Ocean View was the 1992 CABO One and Two Family Code, Chapters 1 through 9. The [redacted] Model construction plans, in compliance with the referenced code, were submitted to and reviewed by both Sussex County and the Town of Ocean View.

[redacted] and [redacted] contracted to purchase the [redacted] on December 30, 2001 and the contract was executed by ROM on January 3, 2002 (See Attachment A). Outlined in the contract under Article 16 Warranty Procedures, were the timing and procedures for the three Owner inspections that would be followed under the one -year Limited Builder's Warranty (Attachment B). Also included as part of this contract were the Woodland Park Specification Sheet (2/6- 4/6) which described the means, methods and materials to be used in the construction of the house.

Building permits were issued on March 12, 2002 (see Attachments C, C-2 and C-3). It is relevant to note that Sussex County's Plan Review Report (Attachment A) states that First State Inspection Agency would be making all inspections for the County (Footer, Framing, Insulation and Final). Each of these four stages had to be inspected and approved before proceeding with the following stages. At that time, Sussex County did not have trained the personnel to inspect and had hired First State to make the required inspections.

Construction on the [redacted] Model began in early April 2002 with the final Certificate of Compliance (C of 0) and/or Occupancy being issued by Sussex County on August 6, 2002. To receive the C of 0 from Sussex County, it was required that all the construction stage inspections had been completed and the work accepted by First State Inspection Agency. This was the case with the [redacted] Model.

In anticipation of the settlement, the 1st Owner's inspection was made with [redacted] on July 29, 2002 (see Attachment D). Included with the Walk Through and given to [redacted] were 13 pages of instructions detailing the following:

• Warranty/Procedures

• New Homeowner specific item inspection list

• Heating and Cooling minimum and maximum temperatures required under the warranty

• Access to Home

• General Reminders Throughout Your First Year

• Guidelines for the care and maintenance for new sod

• Bradford Painting form acknowledging and accepting the exterior and interior paint.

• Outside Shower & Laundry Tub Winter Maintenance

• Mansfield Toilet disclosure

• [redacted] Contractor, Service and Warranty; Suppliers of materials and sub-contractors involved in the house construction

Settlement on the home occurred on or around August 5, 2002.

On September 16, 2002 we received a letter from [redacted] complaining about her sod and its appearance (Attachment E). Despite her representations of witnesses and opinions of a "resident expert", the lawn's appearance was a result of [redacted] not following the watering directions outlined in the Guidelines for the care and maintenance for new sod as referenced above (See Attachment E-1).

In this case, we did work with the Owner to resolve this particular issue as we have done over a number of years after settlement to service our warranty obligations with this Owner.

The 30 Day Walk Through list was taken with the Owner on September 3, 2002 (Attachment F). Our records indicate that the work on this list was completed.

The Year End Walk Through List was taken from the Owner on October 16, 2003 (Attachment G) Our records indicate that most if not all the work on the list was completed. Our records also indicate that we made a request on December 3, 2002 to walk the house with the Owner to verify completion of the list. The Owner refused our request stating it was redundant.

On April 13, 2004, we received a Jetter from [redacted], Esq. outlining 5 items that the Owner maintained were open warranty items (See Attachment H). Our record indicate that regards to Item 1 as noted in the letter, the gutter above the heat pump was clogged with leave debris resulting in the over flow. The Owner was responsible to clean and maintain the gutters on the home, not ROM

On Item 2, it is our understanding that the Owner contracted directly with a contractor to install the water softener by-passing ROM and therefore was responsible for contacting the contractor for the repairs.

While our records indicated we had completed the year end warranty work and had not received a follow-up letter indicating otherwise from [redacted], attorney for [redacted], we did attempt to confirm twice by mail that all warranty work was completed (See Attachments 1). The first attempt returned as a wrong address and the 2"d was never responded to by [redacted]. We considered our warranty obligations completed.

However, on January 13 and 14 of 2009, we received a flurry of calls from [redacted] regards her home and the fact that she had reported us to the Revdex.com. Notes were taken during this call and are reflected in Attachment J. Her main thrust appeared to be the HVAC system. The notes indicate she had called a contractor that provided energy services and wanted the contractor to tell her the house was "loose" without any testing. She indicated that she had had an independent HVAC contractor look at her system and while the duct work was good, the house was "loose".

The upshot of the 3 calls was to threaten ROM and see if we would give her a roll of red flashing for her fascia.

Five years later, beginning April 30, 2014 and lasting through mid-May, we again received a flurry of calls from [redacted]. Notes were taken during most of these calls and are reflected on Attachment K. Her calls were rude and harassing to the degree that our office manager contacted the phone company to complain. The type of language used to describe the contractors involved in the construction was both inaccurate and racist.

However, she did share facts that belie the basis of some of her accusations forwarded to you and contained in your letters. On the May 16th call, she said that she had received a home inspection report from O'Neil Construction that indicated that there were no sill plates installed on the piers under the central girder beam which lead to interior cracking.

We understand that [redacted] Construction is a local contracting and home improvement company. However, when researching the Delaware Division of Professional Regulation Home Inspectors, we did not find [redacted] Construction listed as a licensed home inspector and therefore it is not certified to offer a home inspection report to [redacted]. In addition, the 1992 CABO One and Two Family Code applicable for this construction did not require that a sill plate be installed on the piers.

It appears from [redacted]'s expanded complaint filed May 21st, paragraph's one, five and six, that based on the [redacted] home inspection report, she hired a contractor (possibly [redacted]) to jack the house up under the crawl space and install new concrete footer blocks in the crawl space.

We believe that as a result of this work, numerous problems were created inside the house, besides simply the drywall cracking. We also believe that the recent calls in 2014 to RDM and the complaints filed with Revdex.com are a result of the work [redacted] had done in her crawl space. She confirms this in the sixth paragraph of her complaint by stat ing cracks have become a permanent fixture as a result of the blocks and jacking. Our position regards this aspect of her complaint is that RDM is not responsible for the issues stated and that it has satisfied all of its warranty obligations years ago.

In paragraph two of her complaint, she offers up her understanding that gluing and screwing every 3" could have shored up her house better. In the executed Agreeme nt of Purchase and Sale (Attachment A), the specifications for the construction of the sub framing show that the%" sub floor would be glued and nailed. It is RDM's position that it has no warranty obligations involving this matter.

In paragraph three, [redacted] appears to be stating generalities about most builders rather than specific issues with regards to her home. For instance, she "talked to an expert contractor who rips up floors all the time in his daily work ........and very few nails". It is RDM's position that it has no warranty obligations involving this matter.

In paragraph four, [redacted] notes that the sheet linoleum flooring is curling in the kitchen and bathrooms. The linoleum is 12 years old and the areas she references have been subject to moisture exposure. Over time, if [redacted] has not re caulked and maintained the edges of the linoleum, curling will occur. It is our belief that [redacted] did not maintain the flooring. Therefore it is ROM's position that it has no warranty obligations involving this matter.

In response to [redacted]'s Desired Outcome, RDM believes it has provided adequate customer service over an extended period of time to [redacted] and fulfilled its warranty obligations. RDM takes exception to her derogatory tone toward RDM and great exception to her description of our company as a tyrant and thief.

It is RDM's position that it will not reimburse [redacted] any cost related to her home and it has no warranty obligations to this Owner. It is also our understanding that it is well beyond any legal limitations period applicable to this matter.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Okay, I'll continue to play along until it's decided that yes, in fact there is no one that can force them to own up and take responsibility for their very sloppy work.

The entire crux of the argument rests on the building code and the bottom line is that they failed miserably to adhere to even the basic building requirements, the other sloppiness notwithstanding, and did not install a sill plate on the piers, per their very own words ...

In addition, the 1992 CABO One and Two Family Code applicable for this construction did not require that a sill plate be installed on the piers.

I just spoke to the owner of First State Inspection Agency Inc. ([redacted], and he informed me of just the opposite, that a sill plate is in fact required on the piers.

So once again, they are liars and thieves and at the very least they should be required to refund my money in full. This is the least they should do to make things right. If they possessed the slightest amount of compassion or fairness, they'd also pay to fix this very poorly built house but instead they insist on being a bully and a tyrant insisting that they've done nothing wrong or improper as they have from the beginning when I report this seasonal cracking repeatedly to them and every time they screamed and kicked and dismissed and absolutely and adamantly refused to lift a finger. Then again, they didn't even realize that their cheap unskilled laborers did not follow instructions and not once did they make a true and honest effort to fix the main problem which was the missing sill plate that runs down the centerline beam/joist. Not once did they care to get to the root of the problem but they had no trouble shirking their responsibility to me and all of this lying and bullying and avoidance occurred within the one year warranty period because I was determined to get what I paid for.

And the only reason we are talking about this 12 years later is because I'm trying to sell this poorly constructed house and no one will buy it due to these now permanent cracks/gaps between the walls and ceilings. All the other sloppiness notwithstanding. The facts of the matter are that this house suffers from a very poorly built foundation and the poor application of the subflooring exacerbates and worsens the main problem of a vital part of any foundation. Which causes much more movement and shifting and expansion and contraction than is normal. They tried continuously to tell me that this cracking was merely the usual and standard minor settlement cracking which it is most definitely not. If it were then I could fix the cracks and it would be over and done but this is not the case.

And I'd appreciate it if you, ROM/RDM, could stay on point instead of trying to so obviously confuse the issue by heaping in a lot of extraneous and irrelevant and inconsequential talk like accusing me of making racists comments. Especially, considering that by commenting on it basically confirms for me that it's not only true about your hiring the cheapest, most unskilled, unsupervised labor but it is also a very high probability that they are also illegally here.

So thank you for confirming that detail and for removing all doubt. Fortunately for you though, immigration laws are overlooked and not enforced in this country but I don't need to tell you that though, do I? You know exactly what you can get away with and have for a very long time, after all, no one has held you accountable yet so you are cocky in your knowledge that you are essentially untouchable. Thank you also for proving beyond all doubt that you are a [redacted] who is a liar and a thief who will do as he pleases and no one will dare challenge your status quo of stealing people's lifesavings.

So when you respond to this, please stick to the facts and only talk about the building code and the fact that your illegals forgot to install it. That is all that is relevant here. Again, not withstanding and regardless of the poorly installed subflooring that maybe was glued and maybe was nailed and that's curling and warping and shifting and moving and contracting and expanding. The whole crux of this argument, problem, concern is that there is no sill plate where there is supposed to be one. So I'd appreciate it if you could stay on point and speak only to this fact.

Business

Response:

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated May 30, 2014, which provides a reply from [redacted] to our response to the complaint initially filed.

RDM, Inc. stands behind the response communication submitted dated May, 2014 to the complaint filed by [redacted] and reiterates two {2) important points. First, the construction was performed and house sold to [redacted] approximately 12 years ago and RDM has more than amply and reasonably satisfied any obligations under the sales agreement and any warranties. Second, [redacted] freely acknowledges that various work has been performed on the house by other contractors over that 12 year period and RDM has no knowledge of the extent or quality of the work performed or its impact on the original construction and had no control over what work was done.

RDM built my home in Forest Reach about 10 years ago. We are in the process of painting and updating our home. We are having to spend extra money to repair almost every foot of drywall tape in the house due to poor installation workmanship. I have owned several homes over 20 years old that did not have to have the drywall tape replaced/repaired, so the issue is with the contractor doing a very poor job with the installation. I removed the mirror in one bath to repaint and found holes in the wall that were covered up by the mirror; obviously a lack of pride in workmanship! The kitchen floors are squeaking due to poor installation. I have found much construction debris buried in the flower beds and yard as we were updating the flowers and planting shrubs. In short, I would never consider doing business with this builder due to the very poor quality and lack of workmanship experienced with this home.