Structured Foundation Repairs

Structured Foundation Repairs, Inc / [redacted] Style Definitions */ Structured Foundation Repairs, Inc.’s general conditions are very specific They state: In the event a change of ownership occurs, assignment of this warranty to a new Owner or Owners must be accomplished no later than sixty (60) days after transfer of title Assignment will be made in accordance with the warranty and with the procedures in effect at the time of transfer, upon receipt of payment of the transfer fee current at the time of transfer So long as the provisions of this paragraph are met, there is no limit to the number of transfers that can be made UNLESS ASSIGNMENT IS PROPERLY MADE WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER TRANSFER OF TITLE, THIS WARRANTY IS NULL AND VOID To transfer this warranty, a written request stating the name of the new owner and the property address must be mailed along with a check for $(or current transfer fee) to Trinity Blvd#133, Euless, TX There is no charge for the first transference According to the Denton Appraisal district the complainant purchased the referenced property on 07/02/ He first contacted our office on November 2, Clearly, out of the day transfer window When the complainant was informed that there was no warranty but we could look at other options to try and assist him, our warranty representative explained our company’s procedure for attempting to reinstate a warranty She explained that Structured offers a courtesy evaluation to determine if we can assist the complainant One of three things could happen at the evaluation; We could evaluate the home and determine it needed new work Anytime we do new work, we issue a warranty on both new repairs and previous repairs We could evaluate the home and determine that the previous work needed adjustments We would then put together a proposal to adjust the existing piers (at a cost to the homeowner) After the adjustments were completed we would reinstate the warranty If we did not recommend new repairs or adjustments, we could determine the foundation repairs were performing as intended and petition the President of our company to consider reinstating the warranty through transfer Since we are in “high season” in the foundation repair business, our warranty representative scheduled the appointment with the complainant for the first available spot in December She explained to him that if there was a cancellation she would be more than happy to move him up The complainant said he had an engineer’s report and would be happy to send it in lieu of the evaluation Our warranty representative again explained that an evaluation was necessary The complainant then threatened to contact his attorney When the complainant called back and explained he had a contract on the house, our warranty representative said she would ask the Field Superintendent if his schedule would accommodate anything sooner and get back to him The complainant sent an engineer’s report the next day and after speaking to the Field Superintendent, our warranty representative then called the complainant and moved his courtesy evaluation up to November 12, The complainant seemed pleased that we were trying to accommodate him The buyers contacted our office on Friday November 6, and spoke with a customer service representative When the buyer called our office they told the representative that they felt they were not getting the whole truth from the complainant and just wanted to verify whether or not there was currently a warranty on the foundation repairs Our representative told them that there was not currently a warranty on the foundation repairs but we did have an evaluation set up to determine if it could be reinstated That was the extent of the conversation The information the complainant provides about the conversation with the buyer is totally inaccurate The company representative has no way of predicting how the evaluation will go or what decision the owner will make regarding the property She would not even begin to speculate, much less give a specific percentage of 30% The complainant then called and emailed our office, forcefully alleging unethical behavior on our part He spoke to our warranty representative on the phone and said the only way our company could right this wrong was to “Give me this warranty! Give me this warranty NOW! “ Our warranty representative told him that was not within her power He sent several more emails demanding resolution for our so-called unethical behavior and finally submitted this Revdex.com complaint To summarize, Structured Foundation Repairs has no contractual obligation to either the complainant or his buyer It is in no way unethical to confirm the existence of the warranty to either the buyer, or their representative In fact, under real estate disclosure law, the complainant is responsible for fully disclosing whether or not there is a warranty Apparently, that was not done which prompted the buyer’s call to our office We were offering a courtesy second chance to the complainant despite his oversight of not transferring the warranty After this complaint, Structured Foundation Repairs, Inccancelled the evaluation and notified the complainant If the complainant would like to contact our office and apologize to our staff for his accusations and threatening behavior and rescind his Revdex.com complaint, we will consider re-booking the evaluation If not, he can choose another foundation repair company to threaten and post bad reviews about The company will not be paying for the house, or compensating him for his frivolous claims Since there is no need for an apology on the company’s part, none will be given

Not only is the information regarding pier placement incorrect according to engineering standards it is not the plumber’s area of expertise Hole In One Plumbing did not make the statements she is referencing nor did they make any representation that Structured was negligent in their actions(Per telephone conversations with Hole In One Plumbing’s Owner, Oscar Sherman) The customer is referencing “city” cleanouts which cannot be used to check residential plumbing systems All further references made by Structured in this correspondence will not be in reference to “city” cleanouts The customer is again confusing our information A post plumbing test was included in the customers agreement dated 01/16/ The agreement clearly states that cleanouts are required to test the plumbing(See excerpt below) The cleanout search took place during the post plumbing test appointment scheduled by Hole in One Plumbing with the customer She elected not to attend*Note: Company recommends that the plumbing be tested before and after any foundation work is doneThe Owner is responsible for having the tests performed unless testing is included in the Repair Specifications listed on the front of the agreementAny plumbing leaks detected before or after the foundation repairs have been completed are the sole responsibility of the OwnerTo properly test a sewage line it is necessary to have a working sewage cleanout If a suitable sewage cleanout is not found by the plumber after a reasonable search, the test will be deemed complete with regards to this contract IF the owner wants to have the test actually completed a clean out will need to be installed at the owners expense(An actual test must be performed if mud-jacking is included on the repair specification.) If a sewage leak is detected, it is the Owner’s responsibility to have it repaired within a reasonable period of timeIf the Owner is unwilling or unable to do the repairs, the COMPANY may refund any money previously collected for mud-jacking and may also void the warranty The PDF labeled “ [redacted] and Skyline”is included here as photos inserted it this document in the hopes customer can now view the information It contains all the documentation from Hole In One Plumbing The company is requesting the Revdex.com close this case administratively as all repairs were done in a workmanlike manner per our Agreement and General Conditions signed by the customer Sincerely, [redacted] ManagerTell us why here

To Whom it May Concern:On January 16, said customer signed an agreement agreeing to Structured Foundation Repairs, IncGeneral ConditionsOur general conditions cover issues such as hers in two areas I have copied them here and also attached another complete copy for your recordsThe act of lifting a foundation has inherent risks and often causes damage, cosmetic and otherwiseTherefore the COMPANY has no obligation to repair or replace any damage whether it is exposed, concealed, or buried, to the foundation, structure, floors, plumbing [redacted] *Note: Company recommends that the plumbing be tested before and after any foundation work is doneThe Owner is responsible for having the tests performed unless testing is included in the Repair Specifications listed on the front of the agreementAny plumbing leaks detected before or after the foundation repairs have been completed are the sole responsibility of the OwnerTo properly test a sewage line it is necessary to have a working sewage cleanout If a suitable sewage cleanout is not found by the plumber after a reasonable search, the test will be deemed complete with regards to this contract IF the owner wants to have the test actually completed a clean out will need to be installed at the owners expense(An actual test must be preformed if mud-jacking is included on the repair specification.) If a sewage leak is detected, it is the Owner’s responsibility to have it repaired within a reasonable period of timeIf the Owner is unwilling or unable to do the repairs, the COMPANY may refund any money previously collected for mud-jacking and may also void the warranty The repair method used was concrete pressed pilings We dig a hole about two feet by two feet in diameter and about two feet below the grade beam We then press precast concrete cylinders into the ground, one on top of each other, forming a piling (or pier) The sewage referenced was concealed by dirt, buried beneath the exposure line The simple act of pressing a piling damaged the sewage line This was not an act of negligence as the repairs were being done in a workmanlike manner as covered on our agreement This is not uncommon in our industry The agreement signed by the customer included a post repair plumbing test by a third party plumbing company There were no cleanouts Therefor the test was inconclusive The customer elected to not be present while the plumber was there but was notified of the results and offered the opportunity to have cleanouts installed to determine if there was a sewage leak (Copy of plumbing results attached.) We understand that plumbing problems can be frustrating and sympathize with the customer, however, the customer agreed to our terms before any work commenced Our company satisfied the agreement signed on January 16thand will not be reimbursing the customer for her plumbing issues [redacted] Manager