Simplesoftware, Inc.

Warrior
NOTE: Let me first state
for the record that the original scope of work as well as any additional work
were agreed to in a legally binding, CA State approved, written contract (attached)
which included proper protocols and procedures for compliance with the law, change orders and
arbitrationThe responsibilities of both the owner and the contractor were
clearly defined in the signed contractIt then makes sense to refer to the signed
contract now and use it as a guideline due to this controversyAlso, it is
important to note that I did not agree nor was it included in the contractually
bound scope of work, nor was I ever hired or paid to obtain permits or review
R[redacted],I do understand your frustration and even empathize with
your perception so I think it is very important and may even be helpful to review
the facts of the situation and then to support those facts with available documentation
This way perhaps we can avoid any inflammatory rhetoric or confused recollections
of contracted scope of work and responsibility
Even with all of this being revisited and
debated (see below) the truth is the permit violations have now been abated for
the projectThere was never a problem with the way construction work was completed
at the propertyIt was done correctly, as directed and according to all
applicable building codesIt is important to stay focused on the one issue
here that you are demanding warranty compensation for and that is the issue of
the location of the front wallThe issue is not the permitThe permit not
being pulled before the work was done was simply rectified by pulling it after
the work was done
The problem now is that where you
personally directed Francisco (masonry sub-contractor) to place the wall is apparently
partially in the power company's right-of-wayIf you were not aware of your property lines,
setbacks and right-of-ways then having your property surveyed before you decide
to relocate a wall would have been prudentI was not asked nor was it part of
our contract to have the property surveyedThis issue has to do with you
moving the location of the existing wall for creative purposes without
establishing your allowable parametersI
think I have been more than reasonable in taking the time to work through this
issue with youMy final good faith offer to help settle this dispute is as follows:I will have the wall in
question repositioned to meet city's requirements for 50% of the original bid
or $instead of $7500.00.I will not bill you
the fee you agreed to pay me for working on the abatement issues on your
behalfThis includes my time at $per hour for all conversations,
communications and site visits post ZIRThe total amount is currently $
or hours' worth of effort.I think this is more than reasonable
given the fact that I am not obligated to do anything at allIn return I would
request that you retract this complaint from the Revdex.comWhat follows now is some clarification
and documentation supporting my overall position: According to the Revdex.com you last mentioned that you were
rejecting my response to your original complaint "because: As a Licensed General Contractor it is/was his responsibility
to obtain the required permits & reviewD[redacted] was asked at least three
times if permits were needed, and each time his answer was no If he had
obtained permits, none of this would have been an issue."
Our contract clearly states on page 2, item VIICompliance with Law that:
Contractor and Owner mutually commit to use reasonable care to meet the Requirements of state, federal
and local Law when discharging their responsibilities under this agreement
Therefore we
agreed to equally share the responsibility of determining if obtaining permits
and review was indeed necessaryIf then, after the fact, you determine that
some issue has arisen by not obtaining a permit you would be equally responsible
since you agreed to be mutually responsible in the first place
The
requirements for permits was indeed considered and discussed but saying I was
asked three times and each time I said no is simple a gross misrepresentation
of the factsI did indeed exercise reasonable care in meeting the requirements
of the law and after I made a determination (according to the information at my
disposal) that we were exempt from permits I shared that information with you
via email to which you responded in agreement, "Okay, that actually clears it
up nicelyThank you!!" (See copy pasted emails below)
From: K[redacted] [mailto:[redacted]@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 12:PM
To: D[redacted]
Subject: Re: City of Santa Barbara Clarification
Okay, that actually clears it up
nicely Thank you!!
The guys are just breaking for the
game—a LOT of hard lifting today!!
Regards!
—R[redacted]
On Jun 23, 2014, at 1:PM, D[redacted] <[redacted]@gmail.com> wrote:
R[redacted],
After
rechecking the City of Santa Barbara Guidelines, we are exempt
from the Design Board Review due to the fact that we do not fall into any of
the below listed categoriesYou may have interpreted #(below) as a
"retaining wall" but a "wall fence" is something different altogetherWe fall
under #and are permitted to be less than 6' without review or permit
Single
Family Design Board
Pursuant
to SBMC §22.69.020.Cand 22.69.020.C(excerpts cited below), a building
permit to construct, alter, or add to the exterior of a single family
residential unit or related accessory structure (including fences and walls) on
any lot shall be referred to the Single Family Design Board for design review
if the permit involves the following:
The construction, alteration or addition of a retaining wall that is six feet
(6') or greater in height, or
The construction, alteration or addition of a wall fence or gate in the front
yard of the lot that is greater than three and one-half feet (½') in height
Best
regards,
D[redacted]
Phone:
###-###-####
www.SBHomeInspector.com
Mailing
Address: #### State St #####, Santa Barbara, CA
If you had any reservations about the
interpretation of the law they should have been voiced at that time but you,
like me, believed we understood the parameters and moved forward based on our
understandingI think you will recall after the ZIR was issued that even J[redacted], an expert in planning and permits, expressed his belief that permits
were probably not needed for the front walls so it is not outside the realm of
possibility that our misinterpretation was understandable and not uncommon

From: D[redacted]
[mailto:[redacted]@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 12:PM
To: 'K[redacted]
Cc: B[redacted]
Subject: #### Kenwood
Hi Folks!
Thank you for
your patienceI have endeavored to fit my assistance with the violation
abatement issues at Kenwood into my already full schedule. I'm sure
you can understand, sometimes we are not able to respond to emails as quickly
as we would like due to other equally pressing matters
Although,
based on your email dated June 17, I understand your apparent perspective and
motivation for requesting that I absorb the cost of relocating the wall, I
think it is important to introduce you to another perspectiveI'll try and be
as concise as possible:
·
On the issue of pulling permits:
Based on the
information I was given by the city at the time of the project, I was under the
impression that the improvements we were making to the property were not
improvements that required going through the planning and permitting process
Apparently, I was misinformed despite using reasonable care to meet the
requirements of local lawThat being said, all of the improvement work
executed conformed to the local and federal building code standards
·
On the issue of obtaining as-built permits:
The processes
and costs involved with pulling permits before a project begins versus
obtaining as-built permits after the project is complete are very similarWith
either process you would be required to pay for drawings, any necessary
presentations for the Design Review Board, land surveys, other fees and
permitsNone of those costs were included as part of my contract with you so
it seems unreasonable that you would feel entitled to even hint at
reimbursement for this cost; "We are not asking for reimbursement of Mr
G[redacted]'s salary"
·
On the issue of the sale process and price of the
property:
Everything you
stated in your email dated June about the sale process and $125,paper
loss, although understandably frustrating, appears to be a mixture of
supposition and regurgitated information you received from a salesmen (realtor)
The marketing choices you and your salesman made and your decision to
eventually agree to sell your property for less than its appraised value are
your decisions, periodOne can suppose that the original offer at full asking
price was legitimate and that the ZIR scared them off or, conversely, one can
suppose that they never intended to follow through with the purchase in the
first placeNeither one of us can portend to know what really motivated them
Nothing on the ZIR was immediately enforceable and with an agreement from you
to obtain as-built permits why would any serious buyer then try to use the ZIR
as a reason for walking away? That's just not logicalFurthermore, if the ZIR
was such an impediment to the sale of the home, why not take the home off the
market; resolve the ZIR issues and then place the home back on the market?
Again, these are not decisions that were my responsibility to make nor am I
accountable in any way for the decisions that you made while selling your home
So, in my opinion, you really shouldn't have intimated that I am; "nor do we
expect compensation for the paper loss of $125,000.00"
·
On the only issue that is really pertinent to my
current involvement here:
Obtaining the
as-built permits involved nothing more than preparing and presenting the
required information to the city post- project that we would have normally had
to prepare and present pre- projectAs I stated before, those costs are yours
either before the project or afterAs far as our actual construction processes
and execution the city had no issue because we built everything right
Apparently, according to J[redacted], the only issue the city has is that a portion
of the new front retaining wall was located in a right of wayI say
apparently because this information was somehow established without the use of
a land survey or property markers which seems very odd to meThat and the copy
of the "scale" drawings I obtained from Jarrett do not appear to be an accurate
depiction of realityIn any case, the current location of the front wall was
established by non-other than Renee, personallyAs you may recall, we were in
the process of replacing the existing front wall in its original location when
Renee took it upon herself to stake a new layout design for the front wall and
then directed Francisco and his crew to build the new front wall in the
location she had personally plotted outSince the only real issue the city has
is where the front wall is located and since we built the wall exactly as
directed by Renee, it's very hard to understand why you would want us to
relocate the wall for free
All of this
being said I am hopeful that you will have a better understanding of my
perspectiveI talked to F[redacted] and as a gesture of good will we are willing
to do the necessary wall work for a discounted rate of $Please note
that we are not contractually obligated to perform this work for you nor do you
have a legal basis for a complaintRefer to section "XIV Final Payment" of our
contract:
BMaking of final payment
constitutes waiver of all Claims by Owner against Contractor except those
Claims previously made in writing and delivered to Contractor and those
obligations otherwise provided by this agreement or by operation of Law
Please let me
know what you decide at your convenienceAs I mentioned before, the current
owner does not want us to start work for at least another week or two
Best regards,
D[redacted]
InterNACHI Certified Home
Inspector #NACHI########
CA Licensed General Contractor
B-HIC LIC #####
Phone: ###-###-####
www.SBHomeInspector.com
Mailing Address: State St
#7346, Santa Barbara, CA
93105

Complaint: 10679548
I am rejecting this response because: As a Licensed General Contractor it is/was his responsibility to obtain the required permits & review. D[redacted] was asked at least three times if permits were needed, and each time his answer was no.  If he had obtained permits, none of this would have been an issue. 
Regards,
R[redacted]