***Document Attached [redacted] I anticipate that SSR will say that they "gave" us prints of the home worth $By way of attachment you'll note that I paid the fee for the prints to SSR for the architecYou'll also note that those prints are hand drawn and nearly illegibleI further anticipate that he'll try to convince you that the lot is unbuildableBy way of attachment you'll see just how far along this unbuildable lot isAnd one last item, To date we do not have any engineering product and at this late date considering that we've had to pay additional fees to another engineer for the lot and home lay out, we do not wish to take possession of that work productIt didn't arrive timely and I'm penalized because of it(House Plan)
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) their response is not satisfactorySee the submitted rebuttal document addressing each of the points made by SSR (Revdex.com - converted from original documentsSee file.) The best way to rebut or otherwise address SSR's response is to do it one item at a time Never told that utilities weren't on site--Interview any experienced builder who builds "anywhere" other than a "cookie cutter" allotment that has been developed, and they will tell you that you have to connect to the local municipality's utilities or a install a private well and septic systemWe were aware that the utilities were on the street at the home siteThey would have to be brought to the lot or otherwise connectedThis information was passed from the seller of the lot to us on the transfer of titleWe conveyed to MrH [redacted] that the utilities were on the street, where exactly we didn't know but the City of [redacted] provided maps to the seller of the lot to provide to us at transferMrH [redacted] also provided those same maps as they were provided by the City of [redacted] to either his engineer or representative(Copies attached) The Lot is unbuildable - As evidenced by the photos previously submitted, the lot is apparently buildable as the home is nearly 60% complete and to date has passed every inspection conducted by the City of [redacted] 's inspectors The City of [redacted] only provided me with the information that the utilities were "on the street" in front of the lot and referred me to the maps provided to the seller prior to closing on the lot purchase We received a $5,set of complete house plans for $475---It's quite clear that the value of the plans was $as evidenced by the receipts and cancelled check for those plans that I previously forwarded to the Revdex.comMarket value by definition is what you pay for an itemThis is nothing more than hyperbole to misdirect the audience away from the prime point of misappropriated funds in violation of the contract terms I did receive a refund, but that refund was short the $6,in fees that SSR charged that were not disclosed in the contract (previously sent to Revdex.com) or the spec sheet (attached) Saving $4,on the architect bill--- as addressed above in Untruthful- If SSR continues to slander my person, we may have to move this dispute from the Revdex.com to the district court system and include slander to the contract tortThis is a business dispute and should be conducted in a professional manner To date (Thru 7/13/16) we have not seen any engineering product from either the SSR engineer or SSRWe haven't received an itemized billing for services provide by the SSR engineerWe have had to advance costs to the current builder to ascertain the information needed by the City of [redacted] in order to obtain permits, presumably for the same services that the SSR was to provide based upon the SSR stated paymentsWith prompt remission of that engineering product by the SSR engineer or SSR, we wouldn't have had to advance additional funds, thus the dispute and demand for refund due to non-receipt of product You'll note that as of May 5, the engineer, who was hired and supposedly paid by SSR, reached out to me for payment and advised that once it was received he would forward his CAD program and paperwork to my attention(email available if necessary) We can only assume that he hasn't been paid fully or he would have forwarded that documentation to my attention In neither the contract nor the spec sheet, does it show an hourly rate to be charged by SSR for their supervisor's time, consulting fees or meetings (with city officials)As these costs weren't disclosed they shouldn't be allowedAgain, this is the reason for the dispute and demand of refund of the fees charged for SSR employees If you were to purchase a product on line and charge it to your credit card the charge would be valid if the product is delivered and the amount you agreed to pay at the time of purchase wasn't changed in any wayBut, if the product isn't delivered the merchant would refund the fee for non-deliveryIf the fee charged was greater than the price agreed upon, then the merchant bank would investigate and issue a refund of the disputed amountThis case is similar We were charged for a product that we weren't aware, i.ethat there was going to be a charge or service provide nor were the cost for those services disclosed up front The contract is clear"...If the Seller is unable to obtain all appropriate government permits and approvals for construction of improvements, in which case the Buyer's deposit will be refunded" (see item of the contract terms) SSR apparently feels that they would not be able to obtain the necessary permits if they claim the lot was unbuildable (or whatever other explanation they may choose to offer) and under the terms of the contract all deposit monies should be refundedThus our demand for the remaining $6,withheld incorrectly by SSR (Revdex.com - Additional information provided:) here is the spec sheet provided by SSR as a supplement to the contract terms, it lists all allowances and mentions nothing about additional feesSee the contract previously submitted (Consumer Rebuttal Documents)
We were never told prior to signing the contract that the utilities were not on siteThe lot is unbuildable until the utilitiles are there*** was aware of this several months prior to signing the contract ( if not longer )The City of *** had talked to him about this issue months before we signed the contractI used my architect and *** received a $set of complete house plans for $approxBetween engineering costs, consulting costs, meetings with City and paying supervisor the money *** received was all that was remainingAgain, I saved him over $on the architect billHe was untruthful
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
their response is not satisfactory. See the submitted rebuttal document addressing each of the points made by SSR.
(Revdex.com - converted from original documents. See file.)
The best way to rebut or otherwise address SSR's response is to do it one item at a time.
1. Never told that utilities weren't on site--Interview any experienced builder who builds "anywhere" other than a "cookie cutter" allotment that has been developed, and they will tell you that you have to connect to the local municipality's utilities or a install a private well and septic system. We were aware that the utilities were on the street at the home site. They would have to be brought to the lot or otherwise connected. This information was passed from the seller of the lot to us on the transfer of title. We conveyed to Mr. H[redacted] that the utilities were on the street, where exactly we didn't know but the City of [redacted] provided maps to the seller of the lot to provide to us at transfer. Mr. H[redacted] also provided those same maps as they were provided by the City of [redacted] to either his engineer or representative. (Copies attached)
2. The Lot is unbuildable - As evidenced by the photos previously submitted, the lot is apparently buildable as the home is nearly 60% complete and to date has passed every inspection conducted by the City of [redacted]'s inspectors.
3. The City of [redacted] only provided me with the information that the utilities were "on the street" in front of the lot and referred me to the maps provided to the seller prior to closing on the lot purchase.
4. We received a $5,000 set of complete house plans for $475---It's quite clear that the value of the plans was $605.97 as evidenced by the receipts and cancelled check for those plans that I previously forwarded to the Revdex.com. Market value by definition is what you pay for an item. This is nothing more than hyperbole to misdirect the audience away from the prime point of misappropriated funds in violation of the contract terms.
5. I did receive a refund, but that refund was short the $6,330 in fees that SSR charged that were not disclosed in the contract (previously sent to Revdex.com) or the spec sheet (attached).
6. Saving $4,000 on the architect bill--- as addressed above in 4.
7. Untruthful- If SSR continues to slander my person, we may have to move this dispute from the Revdex.com to the district court system and include slander to the contract tort. This is a business dispute and should be conducted in a professional manner.
8. To date (Thru 7/13/16) we have not seen any engineering product from either the SSR engineer or SSR. We haven't received an itemized billing for services provide by the SSR engineer. We have had to advance costs to the current builder to ascertain the information needed by the City of [redacted] in order to obtain permits, presumably for the same services that the SSR was to provide based upon the SSR stated payments. With prompt remission of that engineering product by the SSR engineer or SSR, we wouldn't have had to advance additional funds, thus the dispute and demand for refund due to non-receipt of product.
You'll note that as of May 5, 2106 the engineer, who was hired and supposedly paid by SSR, reached out to me for payment and advised that once it was received he would forward his CAD program and paperwork to my attention. (email available if necessary) We can only assume that he hasn't been paid fully or he would have forwarded that documentation to my attention.
9. In neither the contract nor the spec sheet, does it show an hourly rate to be charged by SSR for their supervisor's time, consulting fees or meetings (with city officials). As these costs weren't disclosed they shouldn't be allowed. Again, this is the reason for the dispute and demand of refund of the fees charged for SSR employees.
If you were to purchase a product on line and charge it to your credit card the charge would be valid if the product is delivered and the amount you agreed to pay at the time of purchase wasn't changed in any way. But, if the product isn't delivered the merchant would refund the fee for non-delivery. If the fee charged was greater than the price agreed upon, then the merchant bank would investigate and issue a refund of the disputed amount. This case is similar.
We were charged for a product that we weren't aware, i.e. that there was going to be a charge or service provide nor were the cost for those services disclosed up front.
The contract is clear. "...If the Seller is unable to obtain all appropriate government permits and approvals for construction of improvements, in which case the Buyer's deposit will be refunded" (see item 6 of the contract terms).
SSR apparently feels that they would not be able to obtain the necessary permits if they claim the lot was unbuildable (or whatever other explanation they may choose to offer) and under the terms of the contract all deposit monies should be refunded. Thus our demand for the remaining $6,330 withheld incorrectly by SSR.
(Revdex.com - Additional information provided:)
here is the spec sheet provided by SSR as a supplement to the contract terms, it lists all allowances and mentions nothing about additional fees. See the contract previously submitted.
(Consumer Rebuttal Documents)
[redacted]Document Attached[redacted]
I anticipate that SSR will say that they "gave" us prints of the home worth $3.500. By way of attachment you'll note that I paid the fee for the prints to SSR for the architec. You'll also note that those prints are hand drawn and nearly illegible. I further anticipate...
that he'll try to convince you that the lot is unbuildable. By way of attachment you'll see just how far along this unbuildable lot is. And one last item, To date we do not have any engineering product and at this late date considering that we've had to pay additional fees to another engineer for the lot and home lay out, we do not wish to take possession of that work product. It didn't arrive timely and I'm penalized because of it. (House Plan)
***Document Attached [redacted] I anticipate that SSR will say that they "gave" us prints of the home worth $By way of attachment you'll note that I paid the fee for the prints to SSR for the architecYou'll also note that those prints are hand drawn and nearly illegibleI further anticipate that he'll try to convince you that the lot is unbuildableBy way of attachment you'll see just how far along this unbuildable lot isAnd one last item, To date we do not have any engineering product and at this late date considering that we've had to pay additional fees to another engineer for the lot and home lay out, we do not wish to take possession of that work productIt didn't arrive timely and I'm penalized because of it(House Plan)
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) their response is not satisfactorySee the submitted rebuttal document addressing each of the points made by SSR (Revdex.com - converted from original documentsSee file.) The best way to rebut or otherwise address SSR's response is to do it one item at a time Never told that utilities weren't on site--Interview any experienced builder who builds "anywhere" other than a "cookie cutter" allotment that has been developed, and they will tell you that you have to connect to the local municipality's utilities or a install a private well and septic systemWe were aware that the utilities were on the street at the home siteThey would have to be brought to the lot or otherwise connectedThis information was passed from the seller of the lot to us on the transfer of titleWe conveyed to MrH [redacted] that the utilities were on the street, where exactly we didn't know but the City of [redacted] provided maps to the seller of the lot to provide to us at transferMrH [redacted] also provided those same maps as they were provided by the City of [redacted] to either his engineer or representative(Copies attached) The Lot is unbuildable - As evidenced by the photos previously submitted, the lot is apparently buildable as the home is nearly 60% complete and to date has passed every inspection conducted by the City of [redacted] 's inspectors The City of [redacted] only provided me with the information that the utilities were "on the street" in front of the lot and referred me to the maps provided to the seller prior to closing on the lot purchase We received a $5,set of complete house plans for $475---It's quite clear that the value of the plans was $as evidenced by the receipts and cancelled check for those plans that I previously forwarded to the Revdex.comMarket value by definition is what you pay for an itemThis is nothing more than hyperbole to misdirect the audience away from the prime point of misappropriated funds in violation of the contract terms I did receive a refund, but that refund was short the $6,in fees that SSR charged that were not disclosed in the contract (previously sent to Revdex.com) or the spec sheet (attached) Saving $4,on the architect bill--- as addressed above in Untruthful- If SSR continues to slander my person, we may have to move this dispute from the Revdex.com to the district court system and include slander to the contract tortThis is a business dispute and should be conducted in a professional manner To date (Thru 7/13/16) we have not seen any engineering product from either the SSR engineer or SSRWe haven't received an itemized billing for services provide by the SSR engineerWe have had to advance costs to the current builder to ascertain the information needed by the City of [redacted] in order to obtain permits, presumably for the same services that the SSR was to provide based upon the SSR stated paymentsWith prompt remission of that engineering product by the SSR engineer or SSR, we wouldn't have had to advance additional funds, thus the dispute and demand for refund due to non-receipt of product You'll note that as of May 5, the engineer, who was hired and supposedly paid by SSR, reached out to me for payment and advised that once it was received he would forward his CAD program and paperwork to my attention(email available if necessary) We can only assume that he hasn't been paid fully or he would have forwarded that documentation to my attention In neither the contract nor the spec sheet, does it show an hourly rate to be charged by SSR for their supervisor's time, consulting fees or meetings (with city officials)As these costs weren't disclosed they shouldn't be allowedAgain, this is the reason for the dispute and demand of refund of the fees charged for SSR employees If you were to purchase a product on line and charge it to your credit card the charge would be valid if the product is delivered and the amount you agreed to pay at the time of purchase wasn't changed in any wayBut, if the product isn't delivered the merchant would refund the fee for non-deliveryIf the fee charged was greater than the price agreed upon, then the merchant bank would investigate and issue a refund of the disputed amountThis case is similar We were charged for a product that we weren't aware, i.ethat there was going to be a charge or service provide nor were the cost for those services disclosed up front The contract is clear"...If the Seller is unable to obtain all appropriate government permits and approvals for construction of improvements, in which case the Buyer's deposit will be refunded" (see item of the contract terms) SSR apparently feels that they would not be able to obtain the necessary permits if they claim the lot was unbuildable (or whatever other explanation they may choose to offer) and under the terms of the contract all deposit monies should be refundedThus our demand for the remaining $6,withheld incorrectly by SSR (Revdex.com - Additional information provided:) here is the spec sheet provided by SSR as a supplement to the contract terms, it lists all allowances and mentions nothing about additional feesSee the contract previously submitted (Consumer Rebuttal Documents)
We were never told prior to signing the contract that the utilities were not on siteThe lot is unbuildable until the utilitiles are there*** was aware of this several months prior to signing the contract ( if not longer )The City of *** had talked to him about this issue months before we signed the contractI used my architect and *** received a $set of complete house plans for $approxBetween engineering costs, consulting costs, meetings with City and paying supervisor the money *** received was all that was remainingAgain, I saved him over $on the architect billHe was untruthful
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
their response is not satisfactory. See the submitted rebuttal document addressing each of the points made by SSR.
(Revdex.com - converted from original documents. See file.)
The best way to rebut or otherwise address SSR's response is to do it one item at a time.
1. Never told that utilities weren't on site--Interview any experienced builder who builds "anywhere" other than a "cookie cutter" allotment that has been developed, and they will tell you that you have to connect to the local municipality's utilities or a install a private well and septic system. We were aware that the utilities were on the street at the home site. They would have to be brought to the lot or otherwise connected. This information was passed from the seller of the lot to us on the transfer of title. We conveyed to Mr. H[redacted] that the utilities were on the street, where exactly we didn't know but the City of [redacted] provided maps to the seller of the lot to provide to us at transfer. Mr. H[redacted] also provided those same maps as they were provided by the City of [redacted] to either his engineer or representative. (Copies attached)
2. The Lot is unbuildable - As evidenced by the photos previously submitted, the lot is apparently buildable as the home is nearly 60% complete and to date has passed every inspection conducted by the City of [redacted]'s inspectors.
3. The City of [redacted] only provided me with the information that the utilities were "on the street" in front of the lot and referred me to the maps provided to the seller prior to closing on the lot purchase.
4. We received a $5,000 set of complete house plans for $475---It's quite clear that the value of the plans was $605.97 as evidenced by the receipts and cancelled check for those plans that I previously forwarded to the Revdex.com. Market value by definition is what you pay for an item. This is nothing more than hyperbole to misdirect the audience away from the prime point of misappropriated funds in violation of the contract terms.
5. I did receive a refund, but that refund was short the $6,330 in fees that SSR charged that were not disclosed in the contract (previously sent to Revdex.com) or the spec sheet (attached).
6. Saving $4,000 on the architect bill--- as addressed above in 4.
7. Untruthful- If SSR continues to slander my person, we may have to move this dispute from the Revdex.com to the district court system and include slander to the contract tort. This is a business dispute and should be conducted in a professional manner.
8. To date (Thru 7/13/16) we have not seen any engineering product from either the SSR engineer or SSR. We haven't received an itemized billing for services provide by the SSR engineer. We have had to advance costs to the current builder to ascertain the information needed by the City of [redacted] in order to obtain permits, presumably for the same services that the SSR was to provide based upon the SSR stated payments. With prompt remission of that engineering product by the SSR engineer or SSR, we wouldn't have had to advance additional funds, thus the dispute and demand for refund due to non-receipt of product.
You'll note that as of May 5, 2106 the engineer, who was hired and supposedly paid by SSR, reached out to me for payment and advised that once it was received he would forward his CAD program and paperwork to my attention. (email available if necessary) We can only assume that he hasn't been paid fully or he would have forwarded that documentation to my attention.
9. In neither the contract nor the spec sheet, does it show an hourly rate to be charged by SSR for their supervisor's time, consulting fees or meetings (with city officials). As these costs weren't disclosed they shouldn't be allowed. Again, this is the reason for the dispute and demand of refund of the fees charged for SSR employees.
If you were to purchase a product on line and charge it to your credit card the charge would be valid if the product is delivered and the amount you agreed to pay at the time of purchase wasn't changed in any way. But, if the product isn't delivered the merchant would refund the fee for non-delivery. If the fee charged was greater than the price agreed upon, then the merchant bank would investigate and issue a refund of the disputed amount. This case is similar.
We were charged for a product that we weren't aware, i.e. that there was going to be a charge or service provide nor were the cost for those services disclosed up front.
The contract is clear. "...If the Seller is unable to obtain all appropriate government permits and approvals for construction of improvements, in which case the Buyer's deposit will be refunded" (see item 6 of the contract terms).
SSR apparently feels that they would not be able to obtain the necessary permits if they claim the lot was unbuildable (or whatever other explanation they may choose to offer) and under the terms of the contract all deposit monies should be refunded. Thus our demand for the remaining $6,330 withheld incorrectly by SSR.
(Revdex.com - Additional information provided:)
here is the spec sheet provided by SSR as a supplement to the contract terms, it lists all allowances and mentions nothing about additional fees. See the contract previously submitted.
(Consumer Rebuttal Documents)
[redacted]Document Attached[redacted]
I anticipate that SSR will say that they "gave" us prints of the home worth $3.500. By way of attachment you'll note that I paid the fee for the prints to SSR for the architec. You'll also note that those prints are hand drawn and nearly illegible. I further anticipate...
that he'll try to convince you that the lot is unbuildable. By way of attachment you'll see just how far along this unbuildable lot is. And one last item, To date we do not have any engineering product and at this late date considering that we've had to pay additional fees to another engineer for the lot and home lay out, we do not wish to take possession of that work product. It didn't arrive timely and I'm penalized because of it. (House Plan)