Rose Custom Homes LLC

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: WarrantyAs in most disputes there is conflicting informationThe statements MrRose made about the perimeter drain do not match how we were advised concerning the situationMrRose has not addressed why the drain only becomes an issue after we did not agree to other issuesHe states in an attached e mail that if we agree on the other seven issues the warranty is not an issueWhy is the drain a warranty issue only in that scenario?View e mail Roof ReplacementAt the onsite meeting with our attorney MrRose did not advise that either RCH replaces the roof or approves who replaces it in writingOur attorney is a witness to this discussion.MediationAs per MrRose's contract, a mediator is to be mutually agreeable to both partiesHe was informed that we were willing to consider his nominee; however, he has been asked twice if he is willing to consider our nomineeHe has not responded to the question.View e mails Change order feesMrRose has not responded to his professional and ethical conduct related to this matterHis motive is stated in the attached e mail.View e mail Wood Floor Several months after occupancy water damaged a floor adjacent to an outside doorThere were no plumbing leaks, no dishwasher leaks, no refrigerator leaks, or window leaksMrRose offered many opinions as to how the damage occurredNone of these are trueThere is a reason for the leakMrRose has implied there is a connection to our home inspectorThere is no connectionThe inspector documented the damage in during a full home inspectionThe damage was reported, inspected and adjustments were made in We are requesting that RCH pay to repair the floor.Flatwork (driveway, walkway, steps)MrRose selected that date to pour the concreteWe were not part of the selectionWhen a homeowner is accepting some risk, it is still the contractors duty to take all required precautions to ensure that the concrete has the least possible blanket marksAll precautions were not takenQuality control of the blankets was not maintained to ensure a defect free productThey were not kept wrinkle free and were touching the surface or the marks would not have occurredThere marks were very severeView attached photosIn addition, we were advised by an engineer that there are steps that can be taken to minimize the stainingA powdered or liquid release agent can be applied to the surface prior to placing the blanketsWe have asked MrRose if he used release agentsView attached e mailHe has not responded to the questionThe engineer advised us to verify the use of release agents in MrRose's agreement with the subcontractorHe will not release this informationView attached e mailTherefore, if all precautions were not taken the defect is outside the scope of the Limited WarrantyMrRose continues to state that over time the marks will fadeThis is not the written opinion of an engineer and concrete professionalsWe will accept replacing the steps and walkway and providing us with a refund equal to 50% of the driveway Regards, [redacted]

To whom it may concern,We are very disappointed that Ms*** is not satisfied
with her driveway issue and wood floor issue. However this complaint is invalid for the following reasons. Ms*** is correct, we entered into a contract with her
to build her home in March of
2013. Issue # 1- Concrete issue: Ms*** signed a detailed warranty contract. In that contract Section Fstates, F. Owners are advised, and expressly agree to accept the
risk, of cracking, flaking or other problems to the exterior concrete slabs and
concrete flatwork that may occur due to expansive soils or other natural
causes. Cracks, flaking or other
problems concerning or associated with concrete flatwork that do not result in
a structural defect to the Dwelling are not covered under the Limited Warranty. ; Owners’ Initials. (Please see attached page of contract.)This excludes all exterior
flatwork from warranty.In February Ms***
notified RCH that she needed to move into her home by mid-April RCH at that time adjusted the schedule to
complete the home by the time frame requested by Ms***. This required that days prior to C/O the
concrete driveway and slabs be poured in order to complete all subsequent
required items to obtain such C/O on time. This required RCH to pour driveways and sidewalks during the
winter. RCH advised Ms*** verbally
on numerous occasions of the risks of blanket marks on concrete if it is poured
in the winter months and that we are required to use blankets to protect it
during the curing processRCH also followed up all of those conversations with an
email advising Ms*** of the risks and requesting her approval to move
forward. (Please see attached email.) We
received her written approval and acknowledgement of the risks twice. Once during contract signing and once in the
email right before pouring the concrete. RCH advised Ms*** that days after the concrete was
poured if there are marks we can use a concrete cleaning product to clean the
marks off the driveway and that it would remove most if not all of the
marks. We also included this in the
attached email. On or around the day
mark RCH attempted to clean the driveway. Ms*** asked us what product we were using and when we informed
her she then told us not to clean the driveway. We attempted on at least different occasions over the next months to
clean the driveway and remove the marks offering multiple products even though
this was 100% excluded from our contract and warranty. We offered multiple options on products many
of which are considered and certified environmentally safe as well as all were
products that concrete restoration professionals use daily Ms*** prevented us from washing the
driveway every time. From months post
driveway pour to present day we have offered no less than times (all offers
can be verified with emails) to clean the driveway in order to make Ms
*** happy. Ms*** has refused
all offers to remedy the blanket marks. Ms*** claims with a letter that the engineer advises
against us cleaning with acid. She did
not supply the entire letter. The second
page she did not supply explains to her that the driveway is performing well
and that there are other options to solve her issue other than tearing out the
driveway. We never offered to do a straight
acid wash on the driveway as she has implied We offered to use cleaning products designed
for concrete that can contain up to 10% acidWhen we contacted the engineer
and gave him some of the product names we were going to use he had no issue
with using those products to clean the driveway. In that same time the blanket marks have faded more than 70% from when they originally occurred. We have explained to Ms*** that the
marks will continue to fade over time A
lot of concrete is poured in the winter here in Northern Colorado with a lot of
concrete blankets yet it will be very hard to find concrete more than a couple
years old with concrete blanket marks. Our position. This is an invalid complaint as it falls under buyer’s
remorse. Ms*** was well advised
of the risks as well as the solutions prior to us pouring the exterior
flatwork. She was also reminded these situations
are excluded from the warranty and contract prior to us pouring the
flatwork. She also accepted the risk in
writing on two different occasions. Once
in the contract and once in an email. Even though this is excluded from our contract we have
offered more than different times to remedy the blanket marks. Ms*** refuses all offers. Issue # - Wood FloorMs*** claims water damage happened to her wood floor “several
months” after moving in.There were no plumbing leaks, no dishwasher leaks, no refrigerator
leaks, no window leaks and no door leaks that could be located then or since
then. Ms*** by her own admission
states she does not know how it happened.RCH investigated the doors nearby, the window nearby, the
refrigerator and dishwasher. None of
which were malfunctioning at the time of the damage, before the damage or after
the damage. Ms*** also waited weeks after the damage to notify
RCH of an issue. Ms*** had her own inspectors inspect the above items
and they too could not find any malfunctioning items. Our position:We feel again this is an invalid claim.Ms*** wants us to pay to repair a wood floor that has
arguably unnoticeable water damage even though there is NO indication it falls
under a warranty issue. Ms***
claims we fabricated stories We did no
such thingWe did offer our opinion on possible causes but were very clear
that we could not find a definitive cause. We were trying to politely let Ms*** know that we felt this was
not a warranty issue since there was no indication of a manufacturer defect or craftsmanship
issue. We did however offer to have one
of our sub-contractors repair it at our cost (Approx. $200). That was unacceptable to Ms***. We then offered to split the cost with Ms*** to fix the
floor. This too is unacceptable to Ms
***. The only reason we made these
offers was to make Ms*** happy We are under no obligation to fix a floor she
most likely damagedRCH and other inspectors could not find any manufacturer
of craftsmanship defects that explain the water damage.We believe Ms*** or one of the residents of Ms
***’s home damaged the floor in some way knowingly or unknowingly and now
Ms*** wants us to pay fix it. She
claims by her own admission she does not know when the damaged happened or how
it happened. Owner caused damage and or neglect is specifically excluded
from our warranty. In addition we have
estimates to fix it for $so we are not sure why Ms*** is asking
for $1,000.Issue # - Canceled warranty issue:The RCH warranty specifically states in Section E…E. Any material changes made to the Dwelling or to the
Property site, including changes in final grade, without the written approval
of Contractor shall void the Limited Warranty in its entirety. ; Owners’ Initials(See signed attached doc)Ms*** replaced the roof during
the warranty without notifying RCH and or requesting written approval from RCH
We were not notified of the roofer’s name, qualifications and or
experience. Ms*** also changed the
perimeter drain which keeps water out of the foundation and prevents slab and
foundation wall movement. Again she did
this without our written approvalBoth of the above items are two
of the most important items to a home performing the way it is designedMs*** received her year
full warranty. The cancelled warranty is
only for the extended framing, roof and foundation warranty. In 20+ years of building we have yet to have
a framing warranty claim. And since
engineering has become so stringent we have yet to also have a foundation claim
in last years. We have explained this
to Ms*** on numerous occasions As long as Ms*** roof does not leak and
the perimeter drain continues to work she will have no need for the extended
warranty.Our Position:Again we feel this is an invalid
claim. Ms*** wants the warranty
reinstated yet she was unwilling to follow the contract. We cannot warranty a home that has had such
large changes done to it that we did not superviseIn summary we feel that the only person that has acted in
bad faith is Ms***. She is
misleading you with this complaint purposely to get her way. She has sent us letters calling us names,
accusing us of things we have not done, threatening us with lawyers and now
attempting to ruin our reputation with libel statements. She, herself has harassed us on numerous
occasions and with her lawyer for almost two years. We have been more than willing to help but
rather than trust the company who built her an amazing home that “she is very
satisfied with”, (her attorney’s words in the first letter she sent us) she
wants to listen to people knocking on her door and telling her she has issues
with her home and not to trust her builder. We have been more than accommodating with Ms***. We have exceeded the terms of our
contract. We have attempted to fix all
issues Ms*** has had with her home even when not included in the contract
or warranty. We are disappointed Ms
*** is unhappy with a couple issues but we are not sure how to fix her issues
if she will not allow us too. Sincerely Rose Custom Homes

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The warranty issue:Perimeter DrainPrior to any major landscaping work the perimeter drain was hand dug and located by the landscaper to protect itThe perimeter drain pipe was found to be damagedMrRose was informed, came on site to look at the drain and worked with the landscaper to make any changesHe supplied the material to the landscaper for the drainThe warranty was not cancelled until we did not agree on how to solve other issuesMrRose said he would cancel the warranty if we did not agree on other issues and he would not cancel the warranty if we did agreeAn e mail is attached stating this would not be an issue if we agree on other itemsAt the time he was on site working with the landscape professional he did not indicate there would be any problems with the work being completedWhy is the drain a warranty issue if we agree on other items and not a problem if we do not? View attached e mailRoof ReplacementThe roof was replaced due to the hailstorm of MrRose was notified in July that the roof would be replacedThe roof was replaced in July of and it's replacement was discussed at an onsite meeting with our attorney presentThere is a witness and e mails to his notification.MediationWe have attempted to participate in mediation as per the contractThe contract states that the parties will select an arbitrator agreeable to both partiesMrRose has stated that he will participate in four hours of mediation with a particular attorneyThe contract does not provide for limitations on the length of time of any mediation, nor any authority for him to place limits on the length of mediation or demand a certain mediatorWe have asked MrRose if he is willing to consider our nomineesWe have not received a responseHe was advised by our attorney that the amount of time is determined by the mediator and moreover, when you have a provision in your contract, then you must participate in mediation in good faithHe has contended that mediation is a waste of money and that our request is to cause him to unnecessarily expend funds.View attached mediation agreement and e mailChange Order feesIn our Revdex.com complaint we shared MrRose's written remark from September 24,that he will attempt to collect change order fees months after being paid in fullHe has stated his reason in an attached e mail that he suspended the charges for good customer discountSince we now are one of his worst customers, he will seek these fees in mediation and court if we proceed with our concernsIs this professional conduct and directed toward solving the concerns?View attached e mails related to these remarksWood FloorThere is water damage to a wood floor that occurred several months after moving inThe damage is adjacent to an outside doorMrRose was notified of the damage when we noticed itWhen he inspected the damage he stated that he did not know the cause but would adjust the thresholdHe used his tools and made an adjustmentMrRose is correct in stating that there were no plumbing leaks, no dishwasher leaks, no refrigerator leaks and window leaksAs he stated in his response he did offer many opinions on possible causesNone of these opinions happenedOne of his opinions was that we sprayed water at the door to clean the landing and is in an attached e mailWe did not spray water at the door with a hose and did not do anything to damage the floorWithin a few months of living in the house, water penetrated a door and damaged a wood floorA picture is attached that was taken by a home inspectorWe have an estimate to repair the floor from the subcontractors that installed the floor at $If he has a written bid to repair it at $200.00, we have not received it in writingWe are requesting that he pay for repairing the floor.View attached picture and one of MrRose's opinionsThe flatwork (driveway, steps, walkway)Like many people building a home we requested a move in dateIf MrRose felt it was not a reasonable date and would compromise any part of quality construction, he should have informed usWe were not under any pressure to move and would have adjusted the move in dateThis date was very close to his proposed completion dateWe asked him if he could accommodate a particular date and he made the decision to attempt completion within that time frameThe blanket stains are considered to be an aesthetic construction workmanship defect that could have been avoided with proper care and appropriate quality assuranceAesthetic defects are considered to be construction defects such as improperly painted surfacesAn aesthetic failure is a condition that renders a component unsightly and significantly detracts from its appearanceThe blanket stains at our residence are a major defect in the front of new construction that does not meet the standard of care expected on a custom homeThere was not an expectation of anything special, fancy or difficult with our flatworkThere are steps that can be taken to minimize the staining , but they must occur at the time of the concrete finishA powdered or liquid release agent can be applied to the surface of the concrete prior to placing the blanketsUsing this product drastically reduces or eliminates stainsOur stains are very severe and are displayed in attached picturesWe have asked MrRose if he used release agents and he has not responded to the questionBest workmanship practices include keeping the blankets wrinkle free and not allowing them to touch the concreteThe blankets were not maintained to ensure a defect free productThe blanket stains could have been avoided or greatly minimized with the appropriate quality assurance construction proceduresDue to this information, the defect is considered to be outside of the scope of the limited warrantyIn addition, MrRose stated his professional opinion was the stains were not permanent and would bleach out in the sunHe has stated this many times and an e mail is attached from June 15, stating his professional opinionThat is over a year after the concrete was pouredWe attempted to give MrRose the benefit of the doubtA contractor is responsible for providing a solution that is equal to the product we contracted to receiveIt should not be a solution that can degrade the surface of the concrete, the longevity of the concrete or require additional periodic maintenanceWe are willing to compromise this matter in a manner that has been suggested by professionals as equitable for both partiesThe offer is: Replace the steps and walkway and provide us with a refund equal to 50% of the driveway
Regards,
***

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: WarrantyAs in most disputes there is conflicting information. The statements Mr. Rose made about the perimeter drain do not match how we were advised concerning the situation. Mr. Rose has not addressed why the drain only becomes an issue after we did not agree to other issues. He states in an attached e mail that if we agree on the other seven issues the warranty is not an issue. Why is the drain a warranty issue only in that scenario?View e mail Roof ReplacementAt the onsite meeting with our attorney Mr. Rose did not advise that either RCH replaces the roof or approves who replaces it in writing. Our attorney is a witness to this discussion.MediationAs per Mr. Rose's contract, a mediator is to be mutually agreeable to both parties. He was informed that we were willing to consider his nominee; however, he has been asked twice if he is willing to consider our nominee. He has not responded to the question.View e mails Change order feesMr. Rose has not responded to his professional and ethical conduct related to this matter. His motive is stated in the attached e mail.View e mail Wood Floor Several months after occupancy water damaged a floor adjacent to an outside door. There were no plumbing leaks, no dishwasher leaks, no refrigerator leaks, or window leaks. Mr. Rose offered many opinions as to how the damage occurred. None of these are true. There is a reason for the leak. Mr. Rose has implied there is a connection to our home inspector. There is no connection. The inspector documented the damage in 2015 during a full home inspection. The damage was reported, inspected and adjustments were made in 2014. We are requesting that RCH pay to repair the floor.Flatwork (driveway, walkway, steps)Mr. Rose selected that date to pour the concrete. We were not part of the selection. When a homeowner is accepting some risk, it is still the contractors duty to take all required precautions to ensure that the concrete has the least possible blanket marks. All precautions were not taken. Quality control of the blankets was not maintained to ensure a defect free product. They were not kept wrinkle free and were touching the surface or the marks would not have occurred. There marks were very severe. View attached photos. In addition, we were advised by an engineer that there are steps that can be taken to minimize the staining. A powdered or liquid release agent can be applied to the surface prior to placing the blankets. We have asked Mr. Rose if he used release agents. View attached e mail. He has not responded to the question. The engineer advised us to verify the use of release agents in Mr. Rose's agreement with the subcontractor. He will not  release this information. View attached e mail. Therefore, if all precautions were not taken the defect is outside the scope of the Limited Warranty. Mr. Rose continues to state that over time the marks will fade. This is not the written opinion of an engineer and concrete professionals. We will accept replacing the steps and walkway and providing us with a refund equal to 50% of the driveway.
Regards,
[redacted]

To whom it may concern, Response to rejection. RCH is disappointed Ms. [redacted] is unwilling to allow us to address the issues she has. The Warranty RCH is unable to reinstate MS. [redacted]’s extended warranty.  Ms. [redacted] did tell RCH, after the fact, that the perimeter drain was damaged an uncovered and that the sub-contractor she hired outside of her agreement with RCH was repairing it. RCH offered to come by to see what was going on.  Again Ms. [redacted] had been living in the home for a while and the damage was not from initial construction of the home by RCH or any of its subcontractors.  Part of the perimeter drain had already been replaced and covered not by RCH.  A portion of it was still uncovered and needing repair.  RCH was not notified in writing of the landscaping under construction which was required by the contract. When RCH arrived on scene after the damage was already done, RCH consulted with the landscaper on the portion that was still exposed.  RCH was asked to go and purchase some pipe so they could repair the end of the perimeter drain.  While RCH did not damage it and was not responsible for the repair RCH still at our cost helped with the repair attempting to keep our customer very happy.  There was another portion for the perimeter drain that was already repaired / modified that RCH was unaware of until it had already been modified and covered. This portion is now covered by a concrete patio and is the portion RCH is concerned about. The contract stipulates that Ms. [redacted] was to notify RCH in writing in advance of any material changes to the home while under warranty.  Ms. [redacted] made major material changes to her home on three different occasions without notifying RCH in writing. The Roof.  The roof was discussed at the meeting Ms. [redacted] refers to.  At that time RCH advised Ms. [redacted] that either RCH replaces the roof to keep the warranty in effect, RCH approves who replaces it in writing or she will void her warranty if she proceeds without either of those conditions being met.  Ms. [redacted] chose not to notify RCH at the time when she chose to replace the roof.  RCH cannot warranty a home where the roof has been installed by a sub-contractor that was not approved by RCH prior to installation.  RCH understands Ms. [redacted] disagrees with this position. RCH has advised Ms. [redacted] that the warranty she is concerned about will most likely never be needed unless the roof leaks and or the perimeter drain stops working.  Again the only part of the warranty here that is in question is the extended framing and foundation warranty.  RCH has yet to have a warranty claim for either foundation or framing ever.  RCH met and exceeded the initial 1 year warranty for Ms. [redacted].  If Ms. [redacted] contacts RCH with a warranty concern regarding the foundation or the framing in the next 3 years (approx. amount of time left on the extended warranty) RCH would have no issue evaluating her claim on a case by case basis but cannot guarantee anything would be fixed under warranty. Mediation. Ms. [redacted] is correct RCH offered to go to 4 hours of mediation.  RCH also told her it would be willing to go to a mediator by the name of [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] was able to take care of it immediately if all parties could agree to the time. RCH was eager to resolve Ms. [redacted]’s concerns as this had been going on for 18 months. Ms. [redacted]’s attorney did attempt to mislead RCH by stating the mediator determines the time of mediation.  RCH consulted with a mediator and were told Ms. [redacted] and her attorney were incorrect. RCH did agree to mediation with the 4 hour condition to the mediation per a mediator’s recommendation as well as due to some comments Ms. [redacted] made regarding her motive for mediation. RCH is willing to meet Ms. [redacted] in 4 hours of mediation. If RCH considers there to be progress in that 4 hours we would consider continuing forward in mediation.   However if RCH feels it is not progressing at the 4 hour mark RCH would not be willing to waste more time and money on a lost cause for either party. Wood Floor.  The door Ms. [redacted] claims may have caused the issue was found by her own inspector to be in good working order. RCH did not damage the wood floor. RCH did NOT adjust the threshold as Ms. [redacted] claims. RCH simply checked to make sure it was correctly set at the proper height and it was.  RCH offered to fix the floor for Ms. [redacted] attempting to keep our customer happy. There is no indication this is a warranty issue.  The Concrete. RCH took all required precautions to ensure that the concrete had the least possible chance of blanket marks.  Ms. [redacted]’s claims that RCH was somehow negligent when protecting the concrete with blankets is incorrect. RCH advised Ms. [redacted] of the risks of pouring concrete in the winter prior to pour.  Ms. [redacted] indicated she understood those risks and asked us to move forward in writing.  RCH advised Ms. [redacted] ahead of time in writing if blanket marks occur, that it would require cleaning.  Ms. [redacted] indicated in writing she understood and wanted to proceed. RCH offered and attempted to clean the marks off with a number of cleaning products on many, many occasions that would have removed the blanket marks.  Ms. [redacted] would not allow us to do this.  Ms. [redacted] again wants RCH to pay her money. RCH will not pay Ms. [redacted] to replace a driveway that only required a proper cleaning and she would not allow RCH to complete. The cleaning product RCH wants to use is extremely safe and has been used to clean buildings such as the TransAmerica Pyamid in San Fransisco, Mall of America, City Center Tower in Nashville, TN, and The Biosphere 2.  It has also been used to clean historical sites such as The Polish Consulate, NY, One West Wilson Street, Madison, WI, and many others.  This solution will NOT degrade the concrete as Ms. [redacted] is concerned it will. While exterior concrete issues due to natural curing are excluded from RCH warranty and was signed off by Ms. [redacted], RCH would be willing to clean the concrete.  Unfortunately since Ms. [redacted] did not allow us to do when RCH originally advised her RCH should do it, RCH can’t guarantee it will completely remove the marks.  However over time they will fade out.  Sincerely, Rose Custom Homes, LLC Tell us why here...