Saskatoon Woodworks

We had hired [redacted] and his company Saskatoon Woodworks (SWW) in good faith to function as general contractor and coordinate a building project on our behalf. He was productive at the beginning, but later seemed to lose interest, delegated the project to others and things [redacted]. [redacted]. [redacted] we had replace him with another contractor who fixed the problems from [redacted] crew and finished the project (Total overage of our project is $354,000 collectively). There were also many items missing that we paid for but were not on site such as: shower doors, paint, shed materials, step ladder, shop vac, etc., and even our keys. [redacted] refused to take personal accountability even when we offered a solution that would have cost him less than 10% of what he cost us. [redacted] We then tried to use mediation through [redacted] as he (SWW) is listed with this organization. [redacted]Product_Or_Service: Construction LabourDesired Settlement[redacted] Business Response as per complaint numbered:1. [redacted] was not a general contractor he was a site supervisor.2. Payments - agreement was to use their money so as invoices were sent we required payment. We cannot carry jobs as we are a small company.3. [redacted]4. Shower doors - we did not charge them as it was the plumber they hired must have supplied them, again we did not charge for that.5. Paint was used on walls.6. Shed materials were in the back yard including shop vac & step ladder - we know nothing about that.7. The agreement was that we would charge for hours and materials. We told them at the very beginning that we could not quote or estimate because of the magnitude of the project. We did and honored contracts for the windows & doors as well as the siding. We never wanted to take this on and [redacted] offered to be a site supervisor for the sum of $4000.00 based on trades [redacted] & [redacted] would hire. As it worked out it was almost impossible to find trades that would travel out of the city. We ended up working on the project in many areas based on the agreement we would charge by the hour.8. We adamantly told them we felt their numbers were unrealistic for the duplex. [redacted]10. [redacted]11. We were in line with deadlines until the last building inspection where we were informed that the entry doors needed to be fire rated and the stair railing was not to code. It was the original railing and had not yet been replaced. [redacted] called the inspector before the doors were ordered and was told he needed two. When the inspector came back he informed us that we needed 6 in total so 4 more needed to be ordered. This caused a 4 week delay.12. We at all times had qualified site managers and [redacted] often made trips to the site. We have [redacted] 12. [redacted] Eventually there was some issues and [redacted] took over as contact for the project. This caused problems because he was not as available for contact.13. This text was discussed with [redacted] later face to face. The entire text conversation was between two friends. When money was brought up, [redacted] asked if he should just wait to send guys out to the duplex . [redacted]15. The cabinets and doors were on site and were installed. They needed the hinges. We offered to do the other 2 kitchens and vanities at a very low rate. They told us to go ahead. We would have had them completed if they would have gave permission a month sooner and would have been easier to work with.16. We were waiting to receive payment for these invoices in order to pay the subcontractors. As for the electrician up until that last invoice he was billing directly to [redacted] and [redacted] until he found that they would not pay him. As for the tools the drywaller left on site, the locks had been changed so he could not get them out. [redacted] had promised that he would pay us directly for the invoices as [redacted] has explained that he had advanced payment to the drywaller 13 Please contact [redacted] as she has worked on this issue at length. Both [redacted] 19. [redacted]Final Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)We do not agree. Please see our response in a separate email sent to you the same time of responding here (January 28, 2014 at 11:15pm MST). Please let us know if you did not get it or have any questions.[redacted]Final Business Response From: "[redacted]" To: [redacted]@sask.Revdex.com.orgCc: "[redacted]" Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:05:04 AMSubject: [redacted]In response to this matter I feel it best we let lawyers deal with this as they seem intent that it will be going to court. This is unfortunate as I do believe I kept my word and always acted with their best interest in mind. [redacted] Often with text and emails I find things can be miss read as there is [redacted]As for being over budget I told them from day one the numbers they were looking at would never work. They took numbers from a project the government did 4 years prior to starting their project. The comparison has to allow for the fact that Saskatoon was in the middle of a huge boom and prices for everything had gone thru the roof. They moved the house to [redacted] instead of to a nearby lot. They decided to make it a fourplex vs. a duplex with all services being separated, this means 4 electrical, plumbing and heating systems. And to make things worse they left house on blocks in the middle of a field for 6 months causing much damage and extra work. This also put moving date in the middle of winter instead of summer causing additional costs due to the cold and snow.Feel free to call me if you would like to discuss further. [redacted]