Thomas Oil

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below In response to the “message from business” we would like to first point out that the original complaint was specific to billing issuesIn the business’s response there were specific comments that we would like to identify and correct then focus on the point, which was the billing issue First we would like to mention that from our very first meeting with [redacted] Construction we made it clear that it was an entire house remodelThe previous owner was a hoarder so when looking at the property for an estimate it was understood from all parties that there would be adjustments to the original bidIt was also discussed and approved by [redacted] Construction that we had several contacts in the trade and, based on what we found and how much the estimate changed, we would reach out to other contractors [redacted] (owner) confirmed this was OK and that he had often worked with other contractors at the same time Regarding the permitted “kitchen” we discussed from the estimate with [redacted] Construction that we had a wall that we believed was not load bearing and would like it removed, once [redacted] Construction opened the wall to find it may be load bearing we agreed to get the proper permit for the wall removal [redacted] Construction’s architectural contact was not appropriate for the request and did not take into account the overall intent or perhaps the knowhow to do what we needed(the proof is our completed wall removal contrary to what [redacted] Construction proposed was the only option) We do agree that the relationship changed when we found issues with safety (knife left in the front lawn and razor blades left during the demolition), but the real issue was when we received invoices with undocumented mark ups or line items not removedThe stone slabs were viewed and picked out by us and put on hold [redacted] Construction stated it made no difference who paid, we would either get overall credit or credit for each slab since the estimate was higher (kitchen island and master vanity)There was no mention of a mark-upThe cost of the stones was $and $+ 8% = $1,however we were charged $1,(see invoice # [redacted] dated 7/28, which did not include an invoice from Amazon Stones)We contacted Amazon Stones to ensure there was no extra charge aside from 8% taxThey confirmed the tax is 8% but noted they received a contractor’s discount for a total of $1,(attached)When [redacted] was asked to provide the reason for the upcharge (beyond retail final cost) he could not provide an answer and sent an updated invoice (when the contractors discount was mentioned it was explained that the expected price was $1,and if charged correctly we would never have known about the discount they received)This, along with an issue with another invoice where a removal to a line item did not include an update to the cost, is when work and invoices were reviewed twice and when we were considered to be “suspicious” Regarding the issue we contacted the Revdex.com, the final invoice that was not received [redacted] Construction sent an invoice for a “completed” master shower for a total $including hot mop so our tile crew could begin (paid on July 30, 2014)Once inspecting the area it was noticed that the floor was not level which would cause tiles not to lay flat and at that time it was also noted that there were nails below a sticker that states no nails should be below that line [redacted] was contacted and claimed that the hot mop company told him it was okWhen the hot mop company ( [redacted] ***) was contacted they confirmed this is not the case and an industry standard not to go below 7” [redacted] met at the house with his tile contractor and the [redacted] was called again to confirm this is not the caseAt that point, after the job was considered completed and ready for our tile crew to begin, [redacted] Construction claimed it was necessary to have an inspection and permitsThis was the first time there was any mention of permit or inspection, so when the email on August 20th (attached) stated he was going to get an inspection that afternoon for the shower AND the can lights unless we told him otherwise (as well as telling us he will return our $and not charge for can lights), the response was to move forwardAt this point the tile was on hold for one week until the permit was obtained (please note [redacted] Construction did not include correction notice for the undersized drain installed by [redacted] that needed to be fixed before an inspector can come back)Our tile crew also added waterproofing to the surface and had to even out to fix [redacted] Construction’s work for an additional chargeThe existing down lights that were replaced by the requested can lights were left in the crawl space above the newly installed lights instead of being discarded On September 9, we submitted final payment for invoices #***, #***, #***, #***, # [redacted] and requested a final invoice including the credit for the $plus can lights as stated in the email sent on August 20, Please also note to date we have not received any receipts for cashed checks (invoices noted above) totaling $5, On September 22, we received a notice for certified mailIt was picked up a few days later and the notice included only the same invoice as sent times with no explanation or creditSince we had a breakdown of how much each can light cost we were able to determine the final amount of credit and the final invoice was mailed to [redacted] Construction via certified mail on September 26, Please note this letter was not received until October 9, due to an error in the address upon mailingThe timing of this complaint was prior to receiving invoice # [redacted] via certified mail (for the third time with no additional credit or information as to why credit was not included)Please also note the final payment did include the cost for the fan mount however as you can see in Change Order #(Modified on 8/13/14) the breakdown of rough electrical included installation of fan mounts, switches, brackets and installing the fansOne bedroom was “completed” with only one switch (all others have 2, including master fan mount) and no fans were installed however the price was never modified (invoice # [redacted] remained $3,Please also note this change order has no mention of permits needed Please note if additional pictures or copies of emails or invoices are needed to provide proof of anything noted above (where documentation is not already provided) we are happy to provide themThis complaint was specific to a billing situation, however due to the response from [redacted] Construction misplacing blame and name calling, we wanted a chance to refute their claims Thank you Attachments: [redacted] Invoice [redacted] (original) Actual Invoice (Amazon Stones) Change Order & Refund Email (from [redacted] Construction) Change Order Breakdown (rough electrical costs)

October 2, Ms [redacted] Revdex.com of San Diego Viewridge Avenue, Suite San Diego, CA Ms [redacted] ***, Re: I.D # #[redacted] - [redacted] This correspondence is in response to Complaint ID #[redacted] filed by [redacted] on September 22, Whereas the [redacted] s have wrongfully accused [redacted] Construction Incof 'Billing or Collection Issues'These allegations are simply not true As with a large percentage of [redacted] Construction Incclients, the [redacted] s were introduced to us by a previous client referralThe short relationship with the [redacted] s was fraught with difficulties, suspicions, constant accusations and frequent innuendos of impending termination of [redacted] Construction Incservices It was because this was a referral that we were willing to overlook, what many would deem as; unreasonable behaviorFor brevity sake, we provide the following timeline, summarization and evidentiary attachments explaining how we arrived at this situation 07/05/ The initial contract was entered into on 7/05/(Exhibit A)The scope of work was determined after a meeting with the [redacted] s in which they informed us of what they wanted remodeled in their new homeThe total amount of the contract was $124,During construction the [redacted] s made several changes to the scope of work and a second contract was entered into on 07/30/(Exhibit B) The total amount of the revised contract was $111, 07/11/ Originally the [redacted] s were going to compete the rough electrical themselves, and use a different contractor for the windowsIn early July, the [redacted] s asked for pricing for the rough electrical and window installationOn 07/11/we provided C0#(Exhibit C)On 7/13/the change order was approved by both parties On 7/28/ We sent invoice [redacted] (Exhibit D) which included a contractor's mark -upWe received the attached email (Exhibit D) and because this client is a referral we agreed to remove the contractors ma 08/05/ Upon [redacted] 's request we provided Change order #($1,300.00} (Exhibit E)We received the attached request for reduced pricing on 08/05/($1,170.00} (Exhibit E)Again because this was a referral we agreed to reduce the change order (Exhibit E)It remained unsigned 08/08/2014- 08/18/ During this time it was decided that we would not be undertaking the kitchen remodel because the Owners wanted to use a different contractor who would not pull permitsThings became problematic and antagonistic (Exhibit F)The [redacted] s wanted the Supervisor replaced, complained about window installation/insulation and wanted to modify all change orders on hand 8/20/ Due to the [redacted] s unprofessional and aggressive manner, [redacted] Construction Incoffered to allow the [redacted] s to take over the project on 08/20/(Exhibit G)They did not accept the offer, therefore, a change order was not createdIn fact the [redacted] 's stated, 'please move forward' (Exhibit G)As a result we continued with the projectWe pulled and paid for permits on the afternoon of 8/20/We scheduled all inspections, met with inspectors and had all of our work inspected and approved by the City of San Diego Building Dept 09/22/ We presented all invoices to the [redacted] s and they in turn made payment after making various deductions, however, they refused to pay invoice [redacted] (Exhibit H) [redacted] Construction mailed a 'Final Demand for Payment invoice' via certified mail, which the [redacted] s received on 09/22/ (Exhibit H)It appears that after receiving out certified demand for payment, the [redacted] s retaliated by filing a complaint with the Revdex.com Throughout this project, we utilized change orders for ALL changes to the contractA total of change orders were generated, some were signed others were notWe even included change orders that reflected 'no charge' to Owner (Exhibit 1}Therefore the Owner's claims are invalid Yours sincerely, [redacted] Construction Inc

October 2, 2014
Ms. [redacted]
Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
Ms. [redacted],
Re: I.D # #1[redacted] - [redacted]
This correspondence is in response to Complaint ID #1[redacted] filed by [redacted] on September 22, 2014.
Whereas the...

[redacted]s have wrongfully accused [redacted] Construction Inc. of 'Billing or Collection
Issues'. These allegations are simply not true.
As with a large percentage of [redacted] Construction Inc. clients, the [redacted]s were introduced to us by a
previous client referral. The short relationship with the [redacted]s was fraught with difficulties,
suspicions, constant accusations and frequent innuendos of impending termination of [redacted]
Construction Inc. services.
It was because this was a referral that we were willing to overlook, what many would deem as;
unreasonable behavior. For brevity sake, we provide the following timeline, summarization and
evidentiary attachments explaining how we arrived at this situation.
07/05/2014
The initial contract was entered into on 7/05/2014 (Exhibit A). The scope of work was determined after
a meeting with the [redacted]s in which they informed us of what they wanted remodeled in their new
home. The total amount of the contract was $124,150.00. During construction the [redacted]s made
several changes to the scope of work and a second contract was entered into on 07/30/2014 (Exhibit B).
The total amount of the revised contract was $111,430.00
07/11/2014
Originally the [redacted]s were going to compete the rough electrical themselves, and use a different
contractor for the windows. In early July, the [redacted]s asked for pricing for the rough electrical and
window installation. On 07/11/2014 we provided C0#1 (Exhibit C). On 7/13/2014 the change order was
approved by both parties.
On 7/28/2014
We sent invoice [redacted] (Exhibit D) which included a contractor's mark -up. We received the attached
email (Exhibit D) and because this client is a referral we agreed to remove the contractors mark-up
08/05/2014
Upon [redacted]'s request we provided Change order #6 ($1,300.00} (Exhibit E). We received the attached
request for reduced pricing on 08/05/2014 ($1,170.00} (Exhibit E). Again because this was a referral we
agreed to reduce the change order (Exhibit E). It remained unsigned.
08/08/2014- 08/18/2014
During this time it was decided that we would not be undertaking the kitchen remodel because the
Owners wanted to use a different contractor who would not pull permits. Things became problematic
and antagonistic (Exhibit F). The [redacted]s wanted the Supervisor replaced, complained about window
installation/insulation and wanted to modify all change orders on hand.
8/20/2014
Due to the [redacted]s unprofessional and aggressive manner, [redacted] Construction Inc. offered to allow
the [redacted]s to take over the project on 08/20/2014 (Exhibit G). They did not accept the offer,
therefore, a change order was not created. In fact the [redacted]'s stated, 'please move forward' (Exhibit
G). As a result we continued with the project. We pulled and paid for permits on the afternoon of
8/20/2014. We scheduled all inspections, met with inspectors and had all of our work inspected and
approved by the City of San Diego Building Dept.
09/22/2014
We presented all invoices to the [redacted]s and they in turn made payment after making various
deductions, however, they refused to pay invoice [redacted] (Exhibit H). [redacted] Construction mailed a
'Final Demand for Payment invoice' via certified mail, which the [redacted]s received on 09/22/2014
(Exhibit H). It appears that after receiving out certified demand for payment, the [redacted]s retaliated by
filing a complaint with the Revdex.com.
Throughout this project, we utilized change orders for ALL changes to the contract. A total of 13 change
orders were generated, some were signed others were not. We even included change orders that
reflected 'no charge' to Owner (Exhibit 1}. Therefore the Owner's claims are invalid.
Yours sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted] Construction Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
In response to the “message from business” we would like to first point out that the original complaint was specific to billing issues. In the business’s response there were specific comments that we would like to identify and correct then focus on the point, which was the billing issue.
First we would like to mention that from our very first meeting with [redacted] Construction we made it clear that it was an entire house remodel. The previous owner was a hoarder so when looking at the property for an estimate it was understood from all parties that there would be adjustments to the original bid. It was also discussed and approved by [redacted] Construction that we had several contacts in the trade and, based on what we found and how much the estimate changed, we would reach out to other contractors. [redacted] (owner) confirmed this was OK and that he had often worked with other contractors at the same time.
Regarding the permitted “kitchen” we discussed from the estimate with [redacted] Construction that we had a wall that we believed was not load bearing and would like it removed, once [redacted] Construction opened the wall to find it may be load bearing we agreed to get the proper permit for the wall removal. [redacted] Construction’s architectural contact was not appropriate for the request and did not take into account the overall intent or perhaps the knowhow to do what we needed. (the proof is our completed wall removal contrary to what [redacted] Construction proposed was the only option).
We do agree that the relationship changed when we found issues with safety (knife left in the front lawn and razor blades left during the demolition), but the real issue was when we received invoices with undocumented mark ups or line items not removed. The stone slabs were viewed and picked out by us and put on hold. [redacted] Construction stated it made no difference who paid, we would either get overall credit or credit for each slab since the estimate was higher (kitchen island and master vanity). There was no mention of a mark-up. The cost of the stones was $970 and $695 + 8% = $1,798.20 however we were charged $1,963.00 (see invoice #[redacted] dated 7/28, which did not include an invoice from Amazon Stones). We contacted Amazon Stones to ensure there was no extra charge aside from 8% tax. They confirmed the tax is 8% but noted they received a contractor’s discount for a total of $1,558.59 (attached). When [redacted] was asked to provide the reason for the upcharge (beyond retail final cost) he could not provide an answer and sent an updated invoice (when the contractors discount was mentioned it was explained that the expected price was $1,798.20 and if charged correctly we would never have known about the discount they received). This, along with an issue with another invoice where a removal to a line item did not include an update to the cost, is when work and invoices were reviewed twice and when we were considered to be “suspicious”.
Regarding the issue we contacted the Revdex.com, the final invoice that was not received. [redacted] Construction sent an invoice for a “completed” master shower for a total $4500.00 including hot mop so our tile crew could begin (paid on July 30, 2014). Once inspecting the area it was noticed that the floor was not level which would cause tiles not to lay flat and at that time it was also noted that there were nails below a sticker that states no nails should be below that line. [redacted] was contacted and claimed that the hot mop company told him it was ok. When the hot mop company ([redacted]) was contacted they confirmed this is not the case and an industry standard not to go below 7”. [redacted] met at the house with his tile contractor and the [redacted] was called again to confirm this is not the case. At that point, after the job was considered completed and ready for our tile crew to begin, [redacted] Construction claimed it was necessary to have an inspection and permits. This was the first time there was any mention of permit or inspection, so when the email on August 20th (attached) stated he was going to get an inspection that afternoon for the shower AND the can lights unless we told him otherwise (as well as telling us he will return our $4500 and not charge for can lights), the response was to move forward. At this point the tile was on hold for one week until the permit was obtained (please note [redacted] Construction did not include correction notice for the undersized drain installed by [redacted] that needed to be fixed before an inspector can come back). Our tile crew also added waterproofing to the surface and had to even out to fix [redacted] Construction’s work for an additional charge. The existing down lights that were replaced by the requested can lights were left in the crawl space above the newly installed lights instead of being discarded.  On September 9, 2014 we submitted final payment for invoices #[redacted], #[redacted], #[redacted], #[redacted], #[redacted] and requested a final invoice including the credit for the $4500.00 plus can lights as stated in the email sent on August 20, 2014. Please also note to date we have not received any receipts for cashed checks (invoices noted above) totaling $5,260.00.
On September 22, 2014 we received a notice for certified mail. It was picked up a few days later and the notice included only the same invoice as sent 3 times with no explanation or credit. Since we had a breakdown of how much each can light cost we were able to determine the final amount of credit and the final invoice was mailed to [redacted] Construction via certified mail on September 26, 2014. Please note this letter was not received until October 9, 2014 due to an error in the address upon mailing. The timing of this complaint was prior to receiving invoice #[redacted] via certified mail (for the third time with no additional credit or information as to why credit was not included). Please also note the final payment did include the cost for the fan mount however as you can see in Change Order #1 (Modified on 8/13/14) the breakdown of rough electrical included installation of 3 fan mounts, switches, brackets and installing the fans. One bedroom was “completed” with only one switch (all others have 2, including master fan mount) and no fans were installed however the price was never modified (invoice #[redacted] remained $3,395.00. Please also note this change order has no mention of permits needed.
Please note if additional pictures or copies of emails or invoices are needed to provide proof of anything noted above (where documentation is not already provided) we are happy to provide them. This complaint was specific to a billing situation, however due to the response from [redacted] Construction misplacing blame and name calling, we wanted a chance to refute their claims.
Thank you
Attachments:
[redacted] Invoice [redacted] (original)
Actual Invoice (Amazon Stones)
Change Order 8 & 10
Refund Email (from [redacted] Construction)
Change Order 1 Breakdown (rough electrical costs)

October 17, 2014
Ms. [redacted]
Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego CA, 92123
Ms. [redacted],
Re: ID# [redacted]
Since the original complaint was filed by the [redacted]s, we have received a payment in the amount of $3,990.00. Thank You. However, as stated in our first response, there is no change order reducing the cost of invoice [redacted]( see attached). All work performed by [redacted] Construction Inc has been approved by they City of San Diego Development Service Department. 
In order to relieve the financial hardship, we are willing to create a payment plan for the balance of $6,415.00
Yours Sincerely,
[redacted] Construction Inc

Review: Thomas K[redacted] Services charged me $276.51 to clean my furnace.Charged someone else that gave me his contact information only $125.Contacted Thomas about the difference in price and he said he never would charge someone $125. He asked for name and phone number to confirm what I said,I gave him the information and did not here back from him.Desired Settlement: Would like a refund of $151.51 which is the difference of what he charged other person and the going rate for service provided according to another company I contacted.