Rod Martin's Complete Basement Systems

I would like to first start by noting that during a visit to the consumer’s home on July 12th, 2016 at 12:00pm, it was our understanding that all items had been resolved and an action plan to rectify any additional work at no cost to the consumer had been identified and agreed upon.  This...

conversation and action plan did not include any discussion about additional money off the cost of the project promised by the engineer, nor did it include any disagreement about charges for the permitting of the project through the city of Arvada.  Our Production Manager was the company representative who met with the homeowner and directly following the conclusion of the meeting notes were entered into our CRM database from his iPad.  This is reflected in attachment "Revdex.com Complaint Case #[redacted] - J.[redacted]_Customer History - 2016.09.19". With regards to the consumers notes about the contract not itemizing what they were being charged for please refer to attachments "Revdex.com Complaint Case #[redacted] - J.[redacted]_Waterproofing Contract - 2016.09.19" page 1 where the price for the Sump Pump system is clearly noted.  Also refer to attachment "Revdex.com Complaint Case #[redacted] - J.[redacted]_Foundation Contract - 2016.09.19" page 6 where the entire project is itemized per quantity and cost. With regards to the $250 discount/credit promised by the engineer, this was not communicated to us by the engineering company.  We are happy to adjust the invoice to include a credit of $250 and will do so immediately. With regards to the charge for the project permit, this is a non-negotiable charge.  Yes the city has a flat fee that they charge and we do add in a markup for the overall management process.  We have individuals on staff whose responsibilities include, but are not limited to, working with city offices to pull permits, schedule projects and walk through procedures, as well as arrange final closure of the project.  It is not as simple as pull the permit and walk away.  On August 18th, 2016 at 4:48pm one of our staff members contacted the homeowner to schedule the final walk through of the project with the engineer and the city of Arvada; we left a voice mail as no one answered the phone.  On August 19th, 2016 the homeowner contacted our office and informed us that they would contact the city of Arvada to schedule to final walk through so that it was more convenient for them to comply with multiple different schedules on their end.  We have confirmed with the city of Arvada that the final walk through was scheduled and the permit has been closed. To finalize this, [redacted] Complete Basement Systems will credit $250 to the homeowner’s final invoice for the miscommunication from the engineering company about any discounts not disclosed.  The permit fee is non-negotiable and the homeowner is expected to pay the remaining balance of $334.70.  We were notified Sunday September 18th, 2016 that a payment was mailed in for the final balance less $584.70 for the items disputed.  This leaves a remaining unpaid balance of $334.70. Again, to our knowledge everything the homeowner was concerned about had been resolved on July 12th, 2016.  This complaint is null and void and should be removed from purview as everything was resolved during a prior meeting.   Thank you, RS

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have paid the invoice in full 7,863.30.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:It is clear that the business does not want to take responsibility for their their failings. The cement company was not the one to delay responses to calls or scheduling. That was the company I called and paid directly, Rod Martin's Complete Basement Systems. And blaming me for not being able to answer the phone at all times, but when I call back 20-30 times no one solves the issue, proves the point I am making. This company does not take warranty issues or customer service seriously.If the blame the customer for a long response time to warranty issues after the customer called the company 20-30 times during business hours over the course of months and the company could not resolve the issue in any of those individuals calls, then this is certainly an issue of shirking responsibility for responding to warrantly issues. Many customers like myself have jobs that are exceedingly time intensive and calls cannot be taken at any time. Therefore, I must call when I can. Most companies with a strong customer service ethic can solve problems for customers when they call. It is not the case at this company even after 20-30 calls. So I think other potentail customers should see this complaint and set of responses so they can choose for themselves if this is an company they want to deal with.
Sincerely,
Dr. [redacted]

By our account the [redacted] issues were resolved and she is happy now.