Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/19) */
Revdex.com of MN.
Re: Case #[redacted]
Complaint from [redacted]
Hello Revdex.com
We are in receipt of the complaint from Mr. [redacted] referenced above.
We are enclosing all of our correspondence with Mr. [redacted] for your...
review.
At Mr. [redacted]'s request, we submitted a proposal for garage roofing on November 11, 2014, and then a second proposal for garage repairs on November 14.
On February 7, Mr. [redacted] emailed us stating he was "ready to do the garage roof".
Several weeks later, we completed the garage roof re-shingling and some added repairs, referenced in our hand-written invoice which invoice amount was fully paid on March 12.
Our proposal of November 11 clearly describes the garage roofing work, and includes the following:
"Note: removal of old shingle layers may cause heavy dust build-up in garage areas. Please cover any stored possessions during our work. This proposal does not include any garage clean-up"
If has become routine practice in our business (and obviously for the Revdex.com also) to conduct our business by email, just as we're doing now. When our proposal is received by a client via email, and the client emails their acceptance of our proposal, then we proceed under contract to do the work described in our proposal. for the prices noted in our proposals. That is exactly what occurred with Mr. [redacted]'s garage. Our references to a "contract" with Mr. [redacted] simply meant the language or our proposal which Mr. [redacted] had received and accepted.
Our work for Mr. [redacted] was done under city permit, and when he later inquired about the permit sign-off, we contacted the city and eventually recently received confirmation that the permit has been signed off by the City building inspector. City inspectors are very busy, and we are not sure when the sign-off occurred, or, if the sign-off was late, why it was late, but our work has been inspected and approved.
At the completion of this work, Mr. [redacted] thanked our crew and complimented our work, and promptly paid us in full for that work. He also represented himself to us as a profession construction "designer", who would presumably be familiar with proposals, contracts, and the City inspection process, all of which, long after our work, have now apparently become confusing to him.
We are proud of our work for Mr. [redacted], and appreciate his business, and we regret that these later questions are troubling to him.
Sincerely,
[redacted] Nilles, pres.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The contractor never sent a contract by email with the language he quotes regarding the potential debris caused by the roof demolition. The only email document he sent over was a cost quotation with no language regarding debris, which I have documented and forwarded him previously. The contractor is correct that I agreed to the price stated in this email, and is also correct that I paid in full and immediately after the contractor's superintendent called and demanded it on the spot. Fortunately for him, for I never actually signed a contract.
The contractor is apparently not aware of standard procedure regarding a formal, signed contract. He is correct that I am familiar with proposals, contracts, and inspections having worked as an architectural designer and project manager for over ten years. I am not familiar with such off-the-cuff manner in which Mr. Nilles seems to work.
It is regrettable that the contractor never actually visited the job site, met me the client, or returned many of my phone calls regarding this matter. Nor did his job superintendent follow through with estimates he was to provide with additional work.
The permit should have been closed out within a week of the completion of the job, not two months later when I discovered it. Failure to do so represents poor scheduling on the contractor's part, not the city inspectors.
Sincerely
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/07/03) */
7/3/15
Revdex.com
RE: Case no. [redacted]
Thanks for your assistance in clarifying these questions.
Our proposal was sent electronically to the homeowner, he did receive it and hired us to do the work described in it, we have submitted copies of this proposal multiple times to the homeowner and to the Revdex.com.. In it we clearly state that there will be "debris build-up in garage" and our proposal does "not include any garage clean-up"
We have never "demanded" payment from the homeowner. We proceeded to undertake the work described in our proposal without requesting any down payment, and then, after our work was completed and inspected by our client, we requested payment, (which also is clearly stated in our proposal: "Terms: full payment upon completion"), which we promptly received.
I am a law school graduate with 40 years of experience in preparing and then working through construction contracts, and I know what a contract is: a simple meeting of the minds, as evidenced here by written communications between two parties. We described work in writing then performed that work, then presented written invoicing, and received accurate payment with a check signed by our client. Communicating some of these documents electronically is not "off-the-cuff", it is completely normal and fully transparent business procedure.
We are not a one-person business. Our clients' site was visited before, during, and at the end of our work by our roofing foreman of 26 years construction experience. I was never requested to personally visit this site by the owner.
Our client is apparently now acknowledging that the City inspector actually has inspected and approved our work, albeit it not as promptly as he would have preferred.
We are proud of our work for this client, and trust that his new garage roof shingles will serve well for many years to come.
Thanks for your attention
[redacted] Nilles, pres.
Nilles Builders, Inc.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/19) */
Revdex.com of MN.
Re: Case #[redacted]
Complaint from [redacted]
Hello Revdex.com
We are in receipt of the complaint from Mr. [redacted] referenced above.
We are enclosing all of our correspondence with Mr. [redacted] for your...
review.
At Mr. [redacted]'s request, we submitted a proposal for garage roofing on November 11, 2014, and then a second proposal for garage repairs on November 14.
On February 7, Mr. [redacted] emailed us stating he was "ready to do the garage roof".
Several weeks later, we completed the garage roof re-shingling and some added repairs, referenced in our hand-written invoice which invoice amount was fully paid on March 12.
Our proposal of November 11 clearly describes the garage roofing work, and includes the following:
"Note: removal of old shingle layers may cause heavy dust build-up in garage areas. Please cover any stored possessions during our work. This proposal does not include any garage clean-up"
If has become routine practice in our business (and obviously for the Revdex.com also) to conduct our business by email, just as we're doing now. When our proposal is received by a client via email, and the client emails their acceptance of our proposal, then we proceed under contract to do the work described in our proposal. for the prices noted in our proposals. That is exactly what occurred with Mr. [redacted]'s garage. Our references to a "contract" with Mr. [redacted] simply meant the language or our proposal which Mr. [redacted] had received and accepted.
Our work for Mr. [redacted] was done under city permit, and when he later inquired about the permit sign-off, we contacted the city and eventually recently received confirmation that the permit has been signed off by the City building inspector. City inspectors are very busy, and we are not sure when the sign-off occurred, or, if the sign-off was late, why it was late, but our work has been inspected and approved.
At the completion of this work, Mr. [redacted] thanked our crew and complimented our work, and promptly paid us in full for that work. He also represented himself to us as a profession construction "designer", who would presumably be familiar with proposals, contracts, and the City inspection process, all of which, long after our work, have now apparently become confusing to him.
We are proud of our work for Mr. [redacted], and appreciate his business, and we regret that these later questions are troubling to him.
Sincerely,
[redacted] Nilles, pres.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The contractor never sent a contract by email with the language he quotes regarding the potential debris caused by the roof demolition. The only email document he sent over was a cost quotation with no language regarding debris, which I have documented and forwarded him previously. The contractor is correct that I agreed to the price stated in this email, and is also correct that I paid in full and immediately after the contractor's superintendent called and demanded it on the spot. Fortunately for him, for I never actually signed a contract.
The contractor is apparently not aware of standard procedure regarding a formal, signed contract. He is correct that I am familiar with proposals, contracts, and inspections having worked as an architectural designer and project manager for over ten years. I am not familiar with such off-the-cuff manner in which Mr. Nilles seems to work.
It is regrettable that the contractor never actually visited the job site, met me the client, or returned many of my phone calls regarding this matter. Nor did his job superintendent follow through with estimates he was to provide with additional work.
The permit should have been closed out within a week of the completion of the job, not two months later when I discovered it. Failure to do so represents poor scheduling on the contractor's part, not the city inspectors.
Sincerely
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/07/03) */
7/3/15
Revdex.com
RE: Case no. [redacted]
Thanks for your assistance in clarifying these questions.
Our proposal was sent electronically to the homeowner, he did receive it and hired us to do the work described in it, we have submitted copies of this proposal multiple times to the homeowner and to the Revdex.com.. In it we clearly state that there will be "debris build-up in garage" and our proposal does "not include any garage clean-up"
We have never "demanded" payment from the homeowner. We proceeded to undertake the work described in our proposal without requesting any down payment, and then, after our work was completed and inspected by our client, we requested payment, (which also is clearly stated in our proposal: "Terms: full payment upon completion"), which we promptly received.
I am a law school graduate with 40 years of experience in preparing and then working through construction contracts, and I know what a contract is: a simple meeting of the minds, as evidenced here by written communications between two parties. We described work in writing then performed that work, then presented written invoicing, and received accurate payment with a check signed by our client. Communicating some of these documents electronically is not "off-the-cuff", it is completely normal and fully transparent business procedure.
We are not a one-person business. Our clients' site was visited before, during, and at the end of our work by our roofing foreman of 26 years construction experience. I was never requested to personally visit this site by the owner.
Our client is apparently now acknowledging that the City inspector actually has inspected and approved our work, albeit it not as promptly as he would have preferred.
We are proud of our work for this client, and trust that his new garage roof shingles will serve well for many years to come.
Thanks for your attention
[redacted] Nilles, pres.
Nilles Builders, Inc.