TraVek, Inc.

Review: The primary nature of our complaint is more accurately a failure to honor a verbal agreement and failure to provide refund for services not performed.

We had previously worked with Travek on another project at our home several years ago, which was completed to our satisfaction. This past March through August, Travek remodeled our kitchen, replacing all cabinets and countertops. Regarding this project, my wife and I have many complaints. For brevity, I will focus this letter on the most serious complaints, which describe how their actions are not in compliance with the guidelines for Revdex.com Accreditation.

In the planning stage (before we signed the contract), we talked to Travek representative #1 about how the kitchen sink would be mounted under the countertop. We stated our concern that in the event that the sink must be removed in the future, the sink must be mounted to allow removal without also removing or damaging the countertop or attached cabinets. We had multiple discussions about this with Travek representative #1. Travek representative #1 assured us (was adamant) that the sink would be mounted with “clips” that could be removed and would allow the sink to be lowered in the cabinet for easy removal. Travek representative #1 was so positive about the sink mounting that it never occurred to us to include in the contract how to install the sink. They are kitchen remodeling professionals and we trusted them to install the sink as described verbally.

Ultimately, the sink was mounted in such a way that it cannot be lowered in the cabinet and cannot be removed at all without also removing the countertop and other attached cabinets, which would likely be damaged or ruined in the process. Additionally, it is likely that the exact countertop and/or cabinets will not be available in the future. So, in order to maintain color coordination between both halves of the kitchen, the kitchen would require a complete remodel again resulting in significant additional costs beyond the cost of the replacement sink. This is exactly the sink mounting we did not want!!!

At the completion of the project, Travek representative #1 and representative #2 were at our house to collect the final payment. Travek representative #1 admitted remembering our conversations about using clips to mount the sink before we signed the contract in front of me, my wife and Travek representative #2, but quickly went on to state we will never have to replace the sink (how does Travek representative #1 know this?). Travek representative #2 stated that the detail of the sink mounting was not in the contract (apparently implying that they could not be held responsible). After the Travek representative #1 admission that the sink was not installed as stated verbally, is this type of response acceptable for a company that is Revdex.com accredited? I did not provide them with the final payment at that time.

I sent a letter dated 04SEP2013 via email to one of the company managers and to Travek representative #2. The letter detailed our complaints. I asked for a price adjustment for the sink mounting that we did not want. Also, the letter stated that the contract included an unspecified charge for the installation of new appliances (refrigerator, stove, dishwasher and microwave oven) purchased at [redacted]. When the appliances were delivered, the [redacted] delivery driver reminded us that if anyone other than a [redacted] installer opens the boxes and discovers scratch or dent damage, [redacted] would not take the appliance back. So, we decided to pay [redacted] to install the appliances. The letter stated that I am due a price adjustment for the fact that Travek did not install any of the appliances. The letter also stated that Travek needed to respond by 11SEP2013. No response from Travek was received on or before that date. Is this the way a company that is Revdex.com accredited is supposed to respond to a dissatisfied customer?

Next, I sent a certified letter dated 17SEP2013 to the same company manager that I sent the email letter to, once again asking for a price adjustment for the sink mounting we did not want. This letter stated that Travek needed to respond by 25SEP2013. On the afternoon of 25SEP, I received a phone call from someone at Travek requesting a date for another Travek employee and Travek representative #2 to meet at our house to discuss the situation. I responded that I did not know who the named Travek employee was; I can’t recall whether the person said the employee is a part owner of the company or a silent partner in the company. Regardless, the person definitely did not state that the named employee is also a company manager. I said I would call her back with a meeting date on 26SEP. On26SEP, I left a message on the person's voice mail that 02OCT2013 was my preferred date for the meeting and that I wanted to meet with the company manager that I had sent the email and certified letters to. Travek did not respond to this message. Is this type of behavior acceptable for a company that is Revdex.com accredited?

Several days later, I checked the company profile on the Revdex.com website and noticed that the company employee that was to come to the meeting with Travek representative #2 is also a company manager. Had I known that on 25SEP, I would have accepted a meeting with that company manager.

On 30SEP2013, I received a phone call from an attorney representing Travek. Apparently, the company chose to get an attorney involved in the situation before discussing the issues with us directly. Is this the way a company that is Revdex.com accredited is supposed to respond to a dissatisfied customer?

I paid Travek the final payment in person at their offices on 03OCT2013 to avoid the possibility of damage to our credit report or worse. It has been over 30 days since I paid Travek the final payment. I have received no adjustment from Travek for the sink mounting issue or for the appliance installation issue. I have to assume at this point that Travek has no intention of refunding any money, which means Travek has knowingly accepted payment for tasks they did not perform. Is this the way a company that is Revdex.com accredited is supposed to respond to a dissatisfied customer?

According to the Revdex.com website, a company must demonstrate the following attributes to gain and maintain Revdex.com accreditation:

Honor Promises: As related above, when we confronted Travek representative #1 about the sink mounting, Travek representative #2 stated that the sink mounting details were not in the contract, which we interpreted him to mean that Travek representative #1 could not be held accountable for verbal statements. Travek representative #2 stated that Travek representative #1 forgot about using clips to mount the sink. Forgetting that the sink was to be mounted with clips is not an acceptable excuse.

Be Responsive: As related above, Travek did not address our dispute quickly, professionally, or in good faith. Travek did not respond to my email letter. Travek did not respond to the voice mail message I left regarding the meeting date they requested. Travek chose to involve an attorney in the situation without even talking to us directly.

Embody Integrity: As related above, Travek was notified in writing that they did not install the appliances and the contract value should be adjusted accordingly. Travek accepted the final payment they billed us for but have not provided a refund to us for the appliance installations they did not perform. Even though Travek representative #1 admitted in front of the Travek representative #2 that the sink was not installed as stated verbally, Travek has not adjusted the value of the contract in our favor. The Travek contract, invoices and change orders for this project are not itemized so we (the customer) have no idea what the cost of any particular item is. This will allow them to low ball (under value) any price adjustments they may be willing to make.

Be Transparent: Travek has not provided us a PAID IN FULL receipt.

In summary, during the course of our dealings with Travek on this project, Travek has violated 4 of 8 Revdex.com accreditation attributes.

Please contact me if additional information is needed.

Thanks for your time to consider this matter.Desired Settlement: TRAVEK used a sink mounting technique that does not allow for easy removal of the sink. We would like to have a reasonable compensation for the sink mounting we did not want.

TRAVEK charged us for appliance installations they did not perform. We would like to have a reasonable compensation for the appliance installation charges.

TRAVEK owes us a receipt showing we have paid in full.

TRAVEK owes us dated purchase receipts for items (sink, faucet, garbage disposal, etc..) that have third party warranties. These receipts will allow us to receive warranty services from the manufacturers in the event of product failure. We did discuss this with TRAVEK.

Business

Response:

November 27, 2013

Revdex.com

RE: ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted]:

We received the letter in regards to complaint as numbered above, and we do take anything like this very seriously, especially when it includes libel and slander.

In regards to Mr. [redacted]'s letter, we must say that TraVek was aware there was an issue. We tried to set a time for our CEO and me (Production Manager) to meet with them to discuss, go over the contract, and come to a resolution, but Mr. [redacted] left a voicemail absolutely refusing a meeting. He also refused to pay the remainder of the work delivered as per contract, so we were at a standstill. For this reason, we had no choice but to contact our attorney, and when the attorney contacted Mr. [redacted], payment was received promptly.

In regards to payment for services not rendered in installing appliances and not giving them the warranty papers, it is true, but we have not closed out the job because we have not been able to meet with them to go over the work completed as per the contract and close it out properly. Once that is done, we are happy to deliver all of that to them. If, on the other hand, Mr. [redacted] would prefer that we send the warranty papers and a check for the adjustments which include a subtraction for not installing appliances and an addition for attorney fees, and consider the job as completed as per contract, we will do that, too.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

BUSINESS MESSAGE:

Commercial and Residential Licensed, Bonded and Insured ROC #168997 & #168998

Ph: ###-###-####

Fax: ###-###-####

November 27, 2013

Revdex.com

[redacted]4

RE: ID# [redacted]

Dear [redacted]:

We received the letter in regards to complaint as numbered above, and we do take anything like this very seriously, especially when it includes libel and slander.

In regards to Mr. [redacted]'s letter, we must say that TraVek was aware there was an issue. We tried to set a time for our CEO and me (Production Manager) to meet with them to discuss, go over the contract, and come to a resolution, but Mr. [redacted] left a voicemail absolutely refusing a meeting. He also refused to pay the remainder of the work delivered as per contract, so we were at a standstill. For this reason, we had no choice but to contact our attorney, and when the attorney contacted Mr. [redacted], payment was received promptly.

In regards to payment for services not rendered in installing appliances and not giving them the warranty papers, it is true, but we have not closed out the job because we have not been able to meet with them to go over the work completed as per the contract and close it out properly. Once that is done, we are happy to deliver all of that to them. If, on the other hand, Mr. [redacted] would prefer that we send the warranty papers and a check for the adjustments which include a subtraction for not installing appliances and an addition for attorney fees,and consider the job as completed as per contract, we will do that, too.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

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.

December 11, 2013

RE:Complaint

ID #[redacted]

TO:[redacted], Revdex.com (Revdex.com)

We have read the response

from Travek dated 27NOV2013.

Regarding the libel and

slander statement, to the best of our knowledge and recollection, all statements

in our complaint to the Revdex.com are true and accurate. If Travek claims any statement in the complaint false or

inaccurate, we would certainly correct or clarify the statement if facts

support the claim. It should be

noted, however, that no specific statement in our Revdex.com complaint was cited as

libelous or slanderous. We cannot

respond to non-specific accusations.

Regarding the following

quote from the Travek response: “We tried to set a time for our CEO and me

(Production Manager) to meet with them to discuss, go over the contract, and

come to a resolution, but Mr. [redacted] left a voicemail absolutely refusing a

meeting.” What is not acknowledged

is the fact that in the same voicemail, I requested a meeting with the

individuals that I had written my prior letters to since they would be most

knowledgeable about the issues. My

Revdex.com complaint letter makes this very clear. The quote above is misleading at best and provides a false

impression of how I responded to their offer for a meeting.

In the same voicemail, I

proposed a date and time for the meeting (02OCT2013, 7:00 PM). If I had no intention of meeting with

anyone from Travek, why would I have proposed a date and time for the

meeting? There was no response

from Travek. So, the actual fact

is, Travek refused the opportunity to meet with us and instead, contacted their

attorney.

The biggest issue described

in our complaint letter is the sink mounting and yet the Travek response does

not mention this.

The Travek response does

admit that they did not install the appliances and have not provided a refund

of money we paid them for that contract item. Their stated excuse is that they have not closed the job

because they have not been able to meet with us. Travek has had our final payment over 60 days and has been

aware of our Revdex.com complaint for over three weeks, yet we have no indication that

they have attempted to communicate with us to establish a meeting date and time

to “close” the job.

Travek has not provided the

sales receipts that we requested or a Paid In Full receipt. They have our full payment.

We made payments for 90% of

the initial contract value before the last payment. We withheld the last payment due to the disagreement on the

appliance installation and sink mounting issue. We were waiting for the outcome of the meeting to discuss

these issues and agree on what the correct final payment amount should be. As stated above, Travek refused the

opportunity to meet with us and instead, contacted their attorney.

The idea that Travek will

add attorney fees to collect an incorrect final payment does not make sense

after their admission they did not install the appliances.

Furthermore, I have reviewed

my copy of the contract and I see nothing there to indicate that we are

responsible for any of Travek’s attorney fees if there are any.

We invite Travek to send us

a written settlement proposal.

Regards,

Business

Response:

On beha lf of TraVek, I am very sorry that thi s situat ion has come to a po int where the Revdex.com has become involved. Hopefully , though , they can help us

come to

a resolution

and move forward.

Your frustration was very clear to u s, and that is why I wanted [redacted] to come out there w ith me . We are a very reputabl e company and we have pol icies and procedures that we try our best to follow. On e of our procedu res is I f we have had num erous meet ings with a customer, and they just don 't

seem to go anywhere, we do not feel it is in the best interest of either the customer

or TraVek to keep sendin g the same people to resolve a dispute that we have tried to reso lve several times already.

It seems there is too much danger for the situation to esca late becau se of all the emotions already involved, and so in the very rare instance where a dispute seems unsolvabl e, we try to bring in a fresh, experienced person who can look at it from new eyes. This is the reason that we had wanted [redacted], our maj or owner and CEO, to come to your home to v isit about the present situation to and come to a resolu tion.

We received your voicemail that you were not at all interested in meeting with [redacted], and would only meet with [redacted] and I, and if anyone else came, you wou ld not allow us in the door. As a part of that same voicemail , you also expressed your great dissatisfaction, and said that [redacted] I s on borrowed time.

We did not want to find out fi rsthand what borrowed time meant to a clearly dissatisfied cu stomer, and I was not going to send [redacted] or anyone out to a potentially dangerous situation. At this point, we were at a standstill , and we felt that our only option was to contact our attorney to ask for final payment, to wh ich you immed iately obliged and personally brought full payment in to our office.

At that time, although I was in the office at that time, there was no mention mad e of these requests

which are written here, but instead you opted to contact the Revdex.com.

The verbal agreement has been mentioned several times, both on paper and in person. 1see you as being a very intelligent man that pays very close attention to deta il. We also pay close attention to detail, and for that very reason , as you recall , we use a very detailed , written scope of work that we went over line by line with you before you signed the final contract. For obvious reasons, in this type of indu stry with so many variables and different peop le involved, we can never depend on verba l agreements, but rely tota lly on a clearly-defined, legally-bindin g Scope of Work that is always approved by you, the customer.

The verbal agreement you are ta lk ing about is the way the kitchen sink was installed. I have gone over it many times, and know that it was installed per industry standards and the manufactu rer's instruction s, and this is something TraVek is required by law to stand behind . On the same token , for somethin g so important to you, there was nothing about this conversation in the written scope of work or the contract. TraVek installers and I, the ones on the job , knew nothing of the conversation until after the sink was in. Let me reaffirm , though, that th e installation of the sink is proper and somethin g we stand beh ind for the duration of our warranty, and the sink itself is und er an extended warranty from the manu facturer.

As a result of that sink (and some other skills and management you considered lacking), we received a bill from

you for

$20,000

minu s

$4,260. 19

(the final payment and change order)

for a sum total

of $15,739.8 1, in case somethin g were to go wrong w ith the sink that would cause you to have to replace it, all the countertops in the event that the counter was broken, and cabinets in the event that a cabinet was damaged sometime in the future. You said you expected

to have paym ent by September II, 20

1 3. We do not pay for "what-might-happen "down the road; rather we stand behind our warranty, and the manufacturer wi ll stand behind their warranty.

Aga in, I regret that something

that cou ld have been so much fun for all of us has turned this way and we have a real desire to bring this to a close. We h ave completed the Scope of Work, and you ended up with a very nice kitchen . We owe you some money back on a change order, as well as all manufacturer warranties provided to TraVek for product s used on your project, and a Paid in Fu ll Receipt from TraVek, wh ich we typically deliver when we close out a job.

In

order to bring this to completion, we are offering a couple different ideas for

a resolution,

and hopefully we

can come

to an agreement to resolve this.

Resolution #I:

We are happy to send the warranty papers for all the products that we u sed on your project, the TraVek workmanship warranty, a Paid-in-Full receipt and a check for the change order of$1,32

1.60 (which includes a change order for a change in countertop from Burton

Brown to Athenian Gold, exchanging the disposal for an upgraded one, installing customer-provided cei ling lights, dimmers, and remov in g the installation charges for the refrigerator , range, microwav

e, and dishwasher). If you opt for this as our agreed-upon resolution to complete and close this project, although TraVek does mention a customer's responsibility for attorney fees on the back of the contract, we are willing

to remove the attorney fee charge of $540.

Resolution #2:

In order to get an unbiased 3rd party view, we are happy to send the Scope of Work, Contract,

Ch

ange Orders and any other paperwork to the Revdex.com,

have them go over it, and then arrange to meet with them at your home to go over the written agreement.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

December 20, 2013

RE: Complaint ID #[redacted]

TO: [redacted], Revdex.com (Revdex.com)

We have read the Travek letter dated 13DEC2013.

On the balance, we consider this latest letter from Travek a positive step forward to a resolution of this matter. We would appreciate it if the Revdex.com would keep this line of communication open to allow progress to continue. We MAY be interested in Travek’s Resolution #1, but before I comment on Resolution #1, there are some statements in the Travek letter that must be addressed.

Regarding the first paragraph, we warned Travek twice that we would file a complaint with the Revdex.com if we did not receive a satisfactory resolution to this dispute. A verbal warning was stated during the final Travek meeting at our house on 23AUG2013. A written warning was included in our certified letter to Travek dated 17SEP2013. The lack of a response from Travek after allowing more than adequate time forced us to file the complaint with the Revdex.com.

To paraphrase the second paragraph: When a dispute cannot be resolved by a sales representative and/or production manager, Travek brings in “… a fresh, experienced person who can look at it from new eyes.” The final meeting with Travek at our house when this dispute initiated was 23AUG2013. Yet, here we are in December, and I’m exchanging letters via Revdex.com with one of the persons that was at the final meeting, trying to bring this dispute to a resolution. Travek’ s actions do not seem to back up Travek’s words. We find it very odd that Travek upper management or ownership has not commented on this dispute.

Regarding the meeting that Travek requested between us, the CEO and [redacted]: We found another complaint against Travek on the internet (this was an attachment on my 04SEP2013 email) and in that case, the indication is that [redacted] resolved the issue. Hence, we addressed our letters to [redacted]. As I have stated in my previous letters, I requested a meeting with [redacted], rather than the CEO, and [redacted]. I had written my letters to [redacted] and [redacted] was at the 23AUG meeting. Therefore, they would be the most knowledgeable about the dispute. Hence, my restriction of who I would allow in our house for the meeting. There is nothing wrong with that request and it is very logical. As explained in our last letter, Travek turned down this opportunity to meet with us.

My email letter of 04SEP2013 to Travek requested a price adjustment by 11SEP2013. We received no response. My certified letter of 17SEP2013 to Travek requested a price adjustment by 25SEP2013. Travek had 7 days to discuss the dispute with us and provide a price adjustment but instead waited until the afternoon of the last day to call to arrange a meeting in the future. Travek was clearly demonstrating a lack of urgency to resolve the dispute. My voicemail comment that Travek was on borrowed time was meant to indicate that I would delay contacting the Revdex.com pending the results of the meeting they were requesting and that the ensuing discussions leading to a resolution needed to be completed quickly. We fail to see how my voicemail comment in this context conveys danger, yet the Travek letter has portrayed me as “potentially dangerous”. We consider this portrayal to be character defamation.

We have many other complaints about Travek. We have tried to focus our Revdex.com complaint on the most important issues so as not to be sidetracked by complaints that have no monetary value. The Travek responses have taken some my statements out of context and left out associated facts, which creates a false description of the actual scenarios. We have been forced to defend our character and present additional facts to counter the biased Travek statements in their Revdex.com responses.

The Travek response contains the following statement: “The verbal agreement you are talking about is the way the sink was installed.” The statement is misleading at best and provides a false impression. Yes, the sink was installed under the counter top. No, the sink was not installed using “clips” which would allow for easy sink removal in the future as the Travek sales representative assured us verbally prior to and after us signing the contract. The sink being installed per industry standards and manufacturer’s instructions is not in question and is irrelevant to our complaint. If we had known that the sink would not be removable if mounted under the counter top, we would have opted for a sink mounted above the counter top.

The latest Travek response indicates that our sink mounting preference was not known by Travek installers. This is not true. My wife had a one-on-one discussion with the Travek lead installer regarding the use of clips to mount the sink. The use of clips to mount the sink was discussed again in a later conversation between my wife, the Travek lead installer and the Travek sales representative. The Travek sales representative confirmed that clips would be used to mount the sink to allow for easy sink removal in the future. Both of these discussions occurred after the cabinets were installed and some days prior to the installation of the sink and counter top.

The sink and counter top was installed by a sub-contractor. It should be noted that no one from Travek was at our house to supervise the sub-contractor during the sink and counter top installation. Travek was negligent for not providing on-site direction to the sub-contractor to use clips to mount the sink.

The Revdex.com has asked for documentation regarding this dispute. I have provided a copy of the contract to the Revdex.com via email dated 20DEC2013. I would like to direct the Revdex.com’s attention to the bottom of the front side of the contract, which states: No verbal agreement will be honored under this contract. Acknowledgement of this statement requires homeowner initials on the adjacent line. This line is blank, meaning we can expect verbal agreements to be honored.

On the backside of the contract is a paragraph about half way down the page regarding recovery of attorney fees. Acknowledgement of this paragraph requires homeowner signature on the line immediately below the paragraph. This line is blank, meaning we are not responsible for Travek’s attorney fees.

Travek claims to have provided us a “… clearly-defined, legally-binding scope of work … .” I have also sent a copy of the Travek scope of work for this project entitled “[redacted] Kitchen” to the Revdex.com. This is our copy of the scope of work presented to us by the Travek sales representative at the time we signed the contract. Travek has the signed copy. There are blanks* with missing details. The Travek sales representative said he would provide an updated scope of work with the blanks filled in later. No updated scope of work was provided by Travek. Also, there is no price itemization so we have no idea what any contract item is worth.

Even with the missing detail in the scope of work, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 were completed to our satisfaction via verbal agreements and mutual trust.

Work scope item 5 (sink installation) was not completed as described by the Travek sales representative.

Work scope item 9 (appliance installation) was not performed by Travek; we asked Travek not to install the appliances. The appliances were purchased at [redacted]; we preferred to pay [redacted] to inspect the appliances for scratch and dent damage after removal from the boxes and then perform the installations. Travek has accounted for this in the refund offered in Resolution #1.

Regarding work scope item 11 (flooring), to the best of our knowledge, the grout was not sealed. This was not stated previously to Travek; we had forgotten it due to our numerous other complaints.

Travek has not provided a copy of their warranty to us. We cannot determine if Resolution #1 can be the basis for an acceptable resolution package without knowing the terms of the Travek warranty.

On the basis of all we have presented above regarding the sink mounting, we ask Travek to consider adding a mutually agreeable price adjustment in Resolution #1 for the fact that the sink was not installed with clips that allow for future sink removal as we were told multiple times by the Travek sales representative.

Regards,

*NOTE: Disregard the line at the end of Item 12; it is not part of the actual scope of work document.