Tycat Consulting

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below The accusations by Tycat are entirely unsupportable and do not address the actual problems or offer any solutionsThe facts surrounding this matter can be proven through contract documents, governing requirements and written reportsTo that end I am available to review the facts with the Revdex.com at any time convenient to you Revdex.com Holiday DrSuite Pittsburgh, PA 15220January 11, 2016Re: Complaint ID [redacted] The response to my complaint from Tycat Consulting is based entirely on unsupportable innuendoI find it very disheartening that this company has chosen to act in such an unprofessional manner.The project was started without a permit in violation of [redacted] Zoning requirementsConstruction started on May 22, and a permit application was not received by the Borough until May Two letters were subsequently issued by the Borough in regards to code deficiencies prior to a "Zoning Notice Violation - Stop Work Order" issued on July On July the Building Inspector conducted an inspection and noted additional deficienciesThe deficiencies are of a nature that results in the porch being a danger to occupants unless rectifiedI was advised by several contractors that the best option was to remove the structure and start overThese are facts supported by evidence and they cannot be refuted.Tycat is aware that they were required to be in compliance with the Home improvement Consumer Protection Act under the office of the Attorney GeneralThere are violations under the Act which are substantiated by official documents.Two Tycat contractors entered our home illegally and stoie propertyThese contractors were arrested and charged June 20, This is a fact supported by police reports, Tycat's response to the complaint states that the value of stolen property was $and that $was offered as restitutionThey claim I was in agreement with the settlementAt no time was the value of property stolen stated to be $and I completely reject the statement that restitution of $was offered or accepted.After the "Stop Work Order" was received a meeting with the Borough council to address the permit situation was necessaryAn application to the Zoning Hearing Board was submitted by me along with a $filing feeWhile true that the fee was paid by Tycat, it was only because they agreed they should have filed the initial application correctly in the first placeI attended the Zoning Hearing and received approval to proceed on August 19, Tycat did not attend the meetingAgain, these are facts supported by records at the Borough, copies of which are in my possession.Regarding weatherproofing the roof, I was the one who called the Building Inspector to ensure that work on the roof was allowed considering the Stop Work OrderTycat did not "negotiate" anything with the BoroughThey sealed the roof but it was done so poorly that rain water entered the porch and eventually found its way to the basement during a storm the next dayThere is absolutely no truth to the accusation that I told them to stop and that I would complete the job myselfI'm not a builderI insisted they complete the job properly and they did not After a second rain storm resulted in more water entering my basement,I was forced to hire another contractor to install the weather proofing correctly for which I paid $265.Tycat contractors broke a skylight when working on my roofThis was acknowledged by Tycat and replacement at their cost was promisedMy skylight is still broken and no mention of this was made in the repiy to my complaint.Tycat claims that I prevented them from returning to the property to retrieve tools when in fact the exact opposite is trueI recommended they take their tools as the permit problem would require some time to get resoivedThe tools were removed leaving only a few items that would hardly be worth $as claimed.Furthermore, at no time has Tycat ever requested access to the property and therefore at no time have they been refused.Tycat claims that the code violations they themselves acknowledge would be deemed adequate by an engineerIf that's the case then I propose that Tycat contract an independent structural engineer to inspect the porch and provide a written reportAs to the accusation that Tycat has not had an opportunity to review the problems, this is another statementI made several attempts to have them come and discuss the issues and try to resolve themAll of my requests were ignored.Concerning the amount of restitution requested, I was advised by legal counsel to obtain quotes to rebuild the porch correctly to its current state of constructionI obtained quotes ranging from $18,to $20,These prices did not include removal and disposal of the structure which was quoted by one contractor at $5,These estimates were forwarded to Tycat which discredits the claim of misrepresenting damagesAlso, under the Pennsylvania UnfairTrade Practices and Consumer Law (UTPCPL) a private action can be brought for three times actual damages plus attorney's fees which could result in a potential judgement in over $100,I fee! it was extremely fair on my part to request restitution in the amount of $15,000.Regarding the supposed offers to settle, the only offer discussed between my attorney and Tycat was #4, "$10,000"Tycat fails to mention that this offer was rejected due to unacceptable payment conditionsNone of the other offers were received either by me or my attorneyOffer #- "pay $10,000, remove the structure and return the property to pre-construction condition", is ridiculousThis offer would have been accepted if it was in fact madeI would be very interested to know how Tycat can prove this offer was presented.To make a statement that I threatened to alienate the owner from his church community or misrepresent this to his Pastor is very disturbingThe owner claims to be a Christian and therefore my wife and I offered to meet with him and either his Pastor, ours or both in an attempt to discuss and resolve the problem in a Christian mannerTo interpret that offer as an attempt to defame his company is extremely discouraging.I understand the purpose of the Revdex.com is to foster honest and responsive relationships between businesses and consumers with the goal of ensuring the maintenance of an ethical marketplaceIn pursuit of that vision, it will at times become necessary to identify businesses that violate that core missionIt would also be irresponsible for me not to report a company that could very well present a hazardous condition to future customers, I am completely within my rights to file a complaint with the Revdex.com and that doing so is not basis for defamation any more that a request for compensation forces anyone into bankruptcy.At no time have I attempted to misrepresent this matter, I am available to meet with you to review my supporting evidence at any time convenient to youPublication of this complaint should not be delayed by a baseless threat by Tycat regarding an unsupportabie defamation accusation.Thank You [redacted] ***CC: [redacted] ***, Esquire [redacted] Law Offices, P.C

Date: December Letter: [redacted] - Revdex.com [redacted] Ms [redacted] This letter is in response to the complaint I received on December (ID listed above)Please be advised I am not in agreement with nearly all points of the homeowner's complaintIt is our position this complaint is an attempt to intentionally misrepresent facts to defame Tycat Consulting to leverage a payoff in excess of any damages incurred by the homeownerThis fact is evidenced by the homeowner's repeated claim to "just write a check and I will make all these problems go away" and threatening to alienate me from my church community by misrepresenting the situation to my pastor and other members of our congregation whom he knows personallyPlease note this complaint came only weeks after the homeowner rejected a settlement offer, made under duress, in response to their threats to defame Tycat into insolvency and was advised by their counsel that I have been forced into bankruptcy by their breach of contract.Please also note that I am a licensed General Contractor in the State of Pennsylvania and have not, to the best of my knowledge, operated outside the guidelines set forth by the stateWhile there was an unfortunate incident with a Sub-contractor contracted to complete certain aspects of the work, I acted swiftly and decisively at the time to rectify the situation by immediately contacting the local police department and collaborated with them to facilitate their arrestI also provided monetary compensation in an amount equal to the damages ($60) plus other "additions" at no charge with a value of $At the time the homeowner advised that this restitution on behalf of my subcontractor would settle the matter in its entiretyThe homeowner also acknowledged that this was an act of a Subcontractor, not an employee, and that they did not believe their actions reflected the core values of Tycat Consulting nor believed that Tycat Consulting had any control of their actions.The borough did in fact issue a stop work order which I did comply withHowever, I was able to negotiate terms with the Borough to properly weatherproof the structure to prevent damage to the homeAfter those negotiations were made, me and MrHomeowner sat down for a meeting during which I agreed to pay for an additional permitting fee ($200) out of pocket along with labor and material to properly weather proof the structure ($1,500) as compensation for the "inconvenience." After the homeowner received payment and delivery of the materials necessary to properly weatherproof the structure and work had begun (but not completed), the homeowner advised me that my crew was not to return to the premises and would not be allowed to retrieve tools, equipment, and material at the site valued at over $The homeowner was advised that the roof of the structure was not properly weatherproofed and that felt paper would not withstand any protracted period of exposure; the homeowner subsequently advised he would complete the weatherproofing himselfIn fact, according to his statement, he did not weatherproof the structure and is now seeking payment for ensuingdamages as a result of his negligenceI cannot make any statement to the current condition of the structure since we have not been given access for over six months.Tycat did note several inconspicuous items that were not completed by the Subcontractor according to designHowever it is my professional opinion that these items, although outside of design, are not in violation of code and would be deemed adequate by an engineerI have not received any documentation from the Homeowner or the Building Inspector to corroborate the claim of code violationFurther, if in fact there were code violations I was both under contract and willing to remedy these items; but have not been given any details or an opportunity to do soFurther, any claim that a Building Department will not issue a building permit due to code violations is patently false: Work is only allowable under a permit whether that work is new construction, renovations, or code upgrades.Please also be advised that I have the position that the Homeowner is intentionally misrepresenting damages outlined in their complaint to increase their claim amountPlease see the following breakdown:Down Payment ($7,350.00): This down payment amount must be adjusted down $for fees incurred by myself as a result of payment being made by a fraudulent checkFurther this payment represents 40% of the contract value: The structure was 60% complete at the time Tycat was removed from the project.Repairs and Removal ($5,070): As mentioned above Tycat was in the process of weatherproofing the structure to prevent any damage when we were removed, however that work was not completeAny damages thereafter are the direct result of the homeowner's lack of action to remedy the situation.Electrical Panel ($950): The service panel was replaced under a separate contract and was accepted by the homeowner.Move A/C ($1,000): Before construction began the homeowner's AC unit was not functioning due to a leak in the compressorUnder recommendation of another vendor they opted to replace the unit at which time the contracted directly with that vendorThe relocation of AC unit was removed from our scope and therefore we cannot be held responsible for that costThe homeowner was credited $1,200; effectively reducing the contract value to $17,177.00Restocking Fee ($1,200): The windows and doors for this project were purchased from *** [redacted] does not charge a restocking feeFurther, the homeowner has indicated their intent to proceed with the structure using these windows and doors therefore nothing would be returned.Despite these fabricated and/or disingenuous figures the homeowner has alleged, my direct losses, and under threat of defamation I still offered to settle with the Homeowner in the following ways:1) Complete the project at the contract value with any code violations remedied: Rejected.2) Pay $5,000: Rejected3) Pay $5,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: Rejected4) Pay $10,000: Rejected5) Pay $10,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: RejectedIn summary, despite the Homeowner's misrepresentation, there were two issues that occurred during this project both of which occurred without my intention or malice but nonetheless were misfortunate: 1) A subcontractor acted independently to steal $worth of goods from the homeowner, and 2) There was a work stoppage issued as a result of an offset issueIn both circumstances I acted immediately to remedy the situation, protect our investment, and made many concessions to compensate for the two issuesI have suffered losses to the benefit of the homeowner in excess of $2,not to include the negative equity invested to move the project to a point of completion past what I have been compensated forIt is my belief that the Homeowner is seeking to leverage payment in excess of any actual damage by intentionally misrepresenting facts to irreparably harm my reputation and character so that they can complete their project at no cost to themUnder duress from the threat of this damage I made several generous attempts to settle this matterHowever, after these repeated attempts having been rejected and the homeowner's counsel advising a lawsuit I was forced to fiie bankruptcyIt was only when the homeowner was advised of my bankruptcy that he filed this and other complaints in a continued attempt to leverage payment in direct violation of bankruptcy laws.After failed attempts to convince the homeowner to correct their malicious misrepresentations a defamation suit is being filed against them; an injunction against this and other similarly defaming complaints is expected forthwithI kindly request this matter be withheld from publication for an appropriate amount of time to allow the legal merit of this claim to be determined.Kind Regards,Lane [redacted] ###-###-#### [redacted] CC [redacted] - Counsel File

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The accusations by Tycat are entirely unsupportable and do not address the actual problems or offer any solutionsThe facts surrounding this matter can be proven through contract documents, governing requirements and written reportsTo that end I am available to review the facts with the Revdex.com at any time convenient to you
Revdex.com Holiday DrSuite Pittsburgh, PA 15220January 11, 2016Re: Complaint ID 1*** *** ***The response to my complaint from Tycat Consulting is based entirely on unsupportable innuendoI find it very disheartening that this company has chosen to act in such an unprofessional manner.The project was started without a permit in violation of *** *** Zoning requirementsConstruction started on May 22, and a permit application was not received by the Borough until May Two letters were subsequently issued by the Borough in regards to code deficiencies prior to a "Zoning Notice Violation - Stop Work Order" issued on July On July the Building Inspector conducted an inspection and noted additional deficienciesThe deficiencies are of a nature that results in the porch being a danger to occupants unless rectifiedI was advised by several contractors that the best option was to remove the structure and start overThese are facts supported by evidence and they cannot be refuted.Tycat is aware that they were required to be in compliance with the Home improvement Consumer Protection Act under the office of the Attorney GeneralThere are violations under the Act which are substantiated by official documents.Two Tycat contractors entered our home illegally and stoie propertyThese contractors were arrested and charged June 20, This is a fact supported by police reports, Tycat's response to the complaint states that the value of stolen property was $and that $was offered as restitutionThey claim I was in agreement with the settlementAt no time was the value of property stolen stated to be $and I completely reject the statement that restitution of $was offered or accepted.After the "Stop Work Order" was received a meeting with the Borough council to address the permit situation was necessaryAn application to the Zoning Hearing Board was submitted by me along with a $filing feeWhile true that the fee was paid by Tycat, it was only because they agreed they should have filed the initial application correctly in the first placeI attended the Zoning Hearing and received approval to proceed on August 19, Tycat did not attend the meetingAgain, these are facts supported by records at the Borough, copies of which are in my possession.Regarding weatherproofing the roof, I was the one who called the Building Inspector to ensure that work on the roof was allowed considering the Stop Work OrderTycat did not "negotiate" anything with the BoroughThey sealed the roof but it was done so poorly that rain water entered the porch and eventually found its way to the basement during a storm the next dayThere is absolutely no truth to the accusation that I told them to stop and that I would complete the job myselfI'm not a builderI insisted they complete the job properly and they did not After a second rain storm resulted in more water entering my basement,I was forced to hire another contractor to install the weather proofing correctly for which I paid $265.Tycat contractors broke a skylight when working on my roofThis was acknowledged by Tycat and replacement at their cost was promisedMy skylight is still broken and no mention of this was made in the repiy to my complaint.Tycat claims that I prevented them from returning to the property to retrieve tools when in fact the exact opposite is trueI recommended they take their tools as the permit problem would require some time to get resoivedThe tools were removed leaving only a few items that would hardly be worth $as claimedFurthermore, at no time has Tycat ever requested access to the property and therefore at no time have they been refused.Tycat claims that the code violations they themselves acknowledge would be deemed adequate by an engineerIf that's the case then I propose that Tycat contract an independent structural engineer to inspect the porch and provide a written reportAs to the accusation that Tycat has not had an opportunity to review the problems, this is another statementI made several attempts to have them come and discuss the issues and try to resolve themAll of my requests were ignored.Concerning the amount of restitution requested, I was advised by legal counsel to obtain quotes to rebuild the porch correctly to its current state of constructionI obtained quotes ranging from $18,to $20,These prices did not include removal and disposal of the structure which was quoted by one contractor at $5,These estimates were forwarded to Tycat which discredits the claim of misrepresenting damagesAlso, under the Pennsylvania UnfairTrade Practices and Consumer Law (UTPCPL) a private action can be brought for three times actual damages plus attorney's fees which could result in a potential judgement in over $100,I fee! it was extremely fair on my part to request restitution in the amount of $15,000.Regarding the supposed offers to settle, the only offer discussed between my attorney and Tycat was #4, "$10,000"Tycat fails to mention that this offer was rejected due to unacceptable payment conditionsNone of the other offers were received either by me or my attorneyOffer #- "pay $10,000, remove the structure and return the property to pre-construction condition", is ridiculousThis offer would have been accepted if it was in fact madeI would be very interested to know how Tycat can prove this offer was presented.To make a statement that I threatened to alienate the owner from his church community or misrepresent this to his Pastor is very disturbingThe owner claims to be a Christian and therefore my wife and I offered to meet with him and either his Pastor, ours or both in an attempt to discuss and resolve the problem in a Christian mannerTo interpret that offer as an attempt to defame his company is extremely discouraging.I understand the purpose of the Revdex.com is to foster honest and responsive relationships between businesses and consumers with the goal of ensuring the maintenance of an ethical marketplaceIn pursuit of that vision, it will at times become necessary to identify businesses that violate that core missionIt would also be irresponsible for me not to report a company that could very well present a hazardous condition to future customers, I am completely within my rights to file a complaint with the Revdex.com and that doing so is not basis for defamation any more that a request for compensation forces anyone into bankruptcy.At no time have I attempted to misrepresent this matter, I am available to meet with you to review my supporting evidence at any time convenient to youPublication of this complaint should not be delayed by a baseless threat by Tycat regarding an unsupportabie defamation accusation.Thank You*** ** ***CC: *** ** ***, Esquire *** Law Offices, P.C

Date: 23 December 2015 Letter: [redacted]- Revdex.com [redacted] Ms. [redacted]This letter is in response to the complaint I received on 19 December 2015 (ID listed above). Please be advised I am not in agreement with nearly all points of the homeowner's complaint. It is our position this complaint is an...

attempt to intentionally misrepresent facts to defame Tycat Consulting to leverage a payoff in excess of any damages incurred by the homeowner. This fact is evidenced by the homeowner's repeated claim to "just write a check and I will make all these problems go away" and threatening to alienate me from my church community by misrepresenting the situation to my pastor and other members of our congregation whom he knows personally. Please note this complaint came only weeks after the homeowner rejected a settlement offer, made under duress, in response to their threats to defame Tycat into insolvency and was advised by their counsel that I have been forced into bankruptcy by their breach of contract.Please also note that I am a licensed General Contractor in the State of Pennsylvania and have not, to the best of my knowledge, operated outside the guidelines set forth by the state. While there was an unfortunate incident with a Sub-contractor contracted to complete certain aspects of the work, I acted swiftly and decisively at the time to rectify the situation by immediately contacting the local police department and collaborated with them to facilitate their arrest. I also provided monetary compensation in an amount equal to the damages ($60) plus other "additions" at no charge with a value of $500. At the time the homeowner advised that this restitution on behalf of my subcontractor would settle the matter in its entirety. The homeowner also acknowledged that this was an act of a Subcontractor, not an employee, and that they did not believe their actions reflected the core values of Tycat Consulting nor believed that Tycat Consulting had any control of their actions.The borough did in fact issue a stop work order which I did comply with. However, I was able to negotiate terms with the Borough to properly weatherproof the structure to prevent damage to the home. After those negotiations were made, me and Mr. Homeowner sat down for a meeting during which I agreed to pay for an additional permitting fee ($200) out of pocket along with labor and material to properly weather proof the structure ($1,500) as compensation for the "inconvenience." After the homeowner received payment and delivery of the materials necessary to properly weatherproof the structure and work had begun (but not completed), the homeowner advised me that my crew was not to return to the premises and would not be allowed to retrieve tools, equipment, and material at the site valued at over $700. The homeowner was advised that the roof of the structure was not properly weatherproofed and that felt paper would not withstand any protracted period of exposure; the homeowner subsequently advised he would complete the weatherproofing himself. In fact, according to his statement, he did not weatherproof the structure and is now seeking payment for ensuingdamages as a result of his negligence. I cannot make any statement to the current condition of the structure since we have not been given access for over six months.Tycat did note several inconspicuous items that were not completed by the Subcontractor according to design. However it is my professional opinion that these items, although outside of design, are not in violation of code and would be deemed adequate by an engineer. I have not received any documentation from the Homeowner or the Building Inspector to corroborate the claim of code violation. Further, if in fact there were code violations I was both under contract and willing to remedy these items; but have not been given any details or an opportunity to do so. Further, any claim that a Building Department will not issue a building permit due to code violations is patently false: Work is only allowable under a permit whether that work is new construction, renovations, or code upgrades.Please also be advised that I have the position that the Homeowner is intentionally misrepresenting damages outlined in their complaint to increase their claim amount. Please see the following breakdown:Down Payment ($7,350.00): This down payment amount must be adjusted down $175 for fees incurred by myself as a result of payment being made by a fraudulent check. Further this payment represents 40% of the contract value: The structure was 60% complete at the time Tycat was removed from the project.Repairs and Removal ($5,070): As mentioned above Tycat was in the process of weatherproofing the structure to prevent any damage when we were removed, however that work was not complete. Any damages thereafter are the direct result of the homeowner's lack of action to remedy the situation.Electrical Panel ($950): The service panel was replaced under a separate contract and was accepted by the homeowner.Move A/C ($1,000): Before construction began the homeowner's AC unit was not functioning due to a leak in the compressor. Under recommendation of another vendor they opted to replace the unit at which time the contracted directly with that vendor. The relocation of AC unit was removed from our scope and therefore we cannot be held responsible for that cost. The homeowner was credited $1,200; effectively reducing the contract value to $17,177.00Restocking Fee ($1,200): The windows and doors for this project were purchased from [redacted] does not charge a restocking fee. Further, the homeowner has indicated their intent to proceed with the structure using these windows and doors therefore nothing would be returned.Despite these fabricated and/or disingenuous figures the homeowner has alleged, my direct losses, and under threat of defamation I still offered to settle with the Homeowner in the following ways:1) Complete the project at the contract value with any code violations remedied: Rejected.2) Pay $5,000: Rejected3) Pay $5,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: Rejected4) Pay $10,000: Rejected5) Pay $10,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: RejectedIn summary, despite the Homeowner's misrepresentation, there were two issues that occurred during this project both of which occurred without my intention or malice but nonetheless were misfortunate: 1) A subcontractor acted independently to steal $60 worth of goods from the homeowner, and 2) There was a work stoppage issued as a result of an offset issue. In both circumstances I acted immediately to remedy the situation, protect our investment, and made many concessions to compensate for the two issues. I have suffered losses to the benefit of the homeowner in excess of $2,900 not to include the negative equity invested to move the project to a point of completion past what I have been compensated for. It is my belief that the Homeowner is seeking to leverage payment in excess of any actual damage by intentionally misrepresenting facts to irreparably harm my reputation and character so that they can complete their project at no cost to them. Under duress from the threat of this damage I made several generous attempts to settle this matter. However, after these repeated attempts having been rejected and the homeowner's counsel advising a lawsuit I was forced to fiie bankruptcy. It was only when the homeowner was advised of my bankruptcy that he filed this and other complaints in a continued attempt to leverage payment in direct violation of bankruptcy laws.After failed attempts to convince the homeowner to correct their malicious misrepresentations a defamation suit is being filed against them; an injunction against this and other similarly defaming complaints is expected forthwith. I kindly request this matter be withheld from publication for an appropriate amount of time to allow the legal merit of this claim to be determined.Kind Regards,Lane [redacted] ###-###-#### [redacted]- Counsel File

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The accusations by Tycat are entirely unsupportable and do not address the actual problems or offer any solutions. The facts surrounding this matter can be proven through contract documents, governing requirements and written reports. To that end I am available to review the facts with the Revdex.com at any time convenient to you.    
Revdex.com 400 Holiday Dr. Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220January 11, 2016Re: Complaint ID 1[redacted]The response to my complaint from Tycat Consulting is based entirely on unsupportable innuendo. I find it very disheartening that this company has chosen to act in such an unprofessional manner.The project was started without a permit in violation of [redacted] Zoning requirements. Construction started on May 22, 2015 and a permit application was not received by the Borough until May 28. Two letters were subsequently issued by the Borough in regards to code deficiencies prior to a "Zoning Notice Violation - Stop Work Order" issued on July 1. On July 29 the Building Inspector conducted an inspection and noted additional deficiencies. The deficiencies are of a nature that results in the porch being a danger to occupants unless rectified. I was advised by several contractors that the best option was to remove the structure and start over. These are facts supported by evidence and they cannot be refuted.Tycat is aware that they were required to be in compliance with the Home improvement Consumer Protection Act under the office of the Attorney General. There are violations under the Act which are substantiated by official documents.Two Tycat contractors entered our home illegally and stoie property. These contractors were arrested and charged June 20, 2015. This is a fact supported by police reports, Tycat's response to the complaint states that the value of stolen property was $60 and that $500 was offered as restitution. They claim I was in agreement with the settlement. At no time was the value of property stolen stated to be $60 and I completely reject the statement that restitution of $500 was offered or accepted.After the "Stop Work Order" was received a meeting with the Borough council to address the permit situation was necessary. An application to the Zoning Hearing Board was submitted by me along with a $200 filing fee. While true that the fee was paid by Tycat, it was only because they agreed they should have filed the initial application correctly in the first place. I attended the Zoning Hearing and received approval to proceed on August 19, 2015. Tycat did not attend the meeting. Again, these are facts supported by records at the Borough, copies of which are in my possession.Regarding weatherproofing the roof, I was the one who called the Building Inspector to ensure that work on the roof was allowed considering the Stop Work Order. Tycat did not "negotiate" anything with the Borough. They sealed the roof but it was done so poorly that rain water entered the porch and eventually found its way to the basement during a storm the next day. There is absolutely no truth to the accusation that I told them to stop and that I would complete the job myself. I'm not a builder. I insisted they complete the job properly and they did not After a second rain storm resulted in more water entering my basement,I was forced to hire another contractor to install the weather proofing correctly for which I paid $265.Tycat contractors broke a skylight when working on my roof. This was acknowledged by Tycat and replacement at their cost was promised. My skylight is still broken and no mention of this was made in the repiy to my complaint.Tycat claims that I prevented them from returning to the property to retrieve tools when in fact the exact opposite is true. I recommended they take their tools as the permit problem would require some time to get resoived. The tools were removed leaving only a few items that would hardly be worth $700 as claimed.Furthermore, at no time has Tycat ever requested access to the property and therefore at no time have they been refused.Tycat claims that the code violations they themselves acknowledge would be deemed adequate by an engineer. If that's the case then I propose that Tycat contract an independent structural engineer to inspect the porch and provide a written report. As to the accusation that Tycat has not had an opportunity to review the problems, this is another false statement. I made several attempts to have them come and discuss the issues and try to resolve them. All of my requests were ignored.Concerning the amount of restitution requested, I was advised by legal counsel to obtain quotes to rebuild the porch correctly to its current state of construction. I obtained quotes ranging from $18,486 to $20,000. These prices did not include removal and disposal of the structure which was quoted by one contractor at $5,000. These estimates were forwarded to Tycat which discredits the claim of misrepresenting damages. Also, under the Pennsylvania UnfairTrade Practices and Consumer Law (UTPCPL) a private action can be brought for three times actual damages plus attorney's fees which could result in a potential judgement in over $100,000. I fee! it was extremely fair on my part to request restitution in the amount of $15,000.Regarding the supposed offers to settle, the only offer discussed between my attorney and Tycat was #4, "$10,000". Tycat fails to mention that this offer was rejected due to unacceptable payment conditions. None of the other offers were received either by me or my attorney. Offer #5 - "pay $10,000, remove the structure and return the property to pre-construction condition", is ridiculous. This offer would have been accepted if it was in fact made. I would be very interested to know how Tycat can prove this offer was presented.To make a statement that I threatened to alienate the owner from his church community or misrepresent this to his Pastor is very disturbing. The owner claims to be a Christian and therefore my wife and I offered to meet with him and either his Pastor, ours or both in an attempt to discuss and resolve the problem in a Christian manner. To interpret that offer as an attempt to defame his company is extremely discouraging.I understand the purpose of the Revdex.com is to foster honest and responsive relationships between businesses and consumers with the goal of ensuring the maintenance of an ethical marketplace. In pursuit of that vision, it will at times become necessary to identify businesses that violate that core mission. It would also be irresponsible for me not to report a company that could very well present a hazardous condition to future customers, I am completely within my rights to file a complaint with the Revdex.com and that doing so is not basis for defamation any more that a request for compensation forces anyone into bankruptcy.At no time have I attempted to misrepresent this matter, I am available to meet with you to review my supporting evidence at any time convenient to you. Publication of this complaint should not be delayed by a baseless threat by Tycat regarding an unsupportabie defamation accusation.Thank You[redacted]CC: [redacted], Esquire [redacted] Law Offices, P.C.

Date: 23 December 2015 Letter: [redacted]- Revdex.com [redacted] Ms. [redacted]This letter is in response to the complaint I received on 19 December 2015 (ID listed above). Please be advised I am not in agreement with nearly all points of the homeowner's complaint. It is our position...

this complaint is an attempt to intentionally misrepresent facts to defame Tycat Consulting to leverage a payoff in excess of any damages incurred by the homeowner. This fact is evidenced by the homeowner's repeated claim to "just write a check and I will make all these problems go away" and threatening to alienate me from my church community by misrepresenting the situation to my pastor and other members of our congregation whom he knows personally. Please note this complaint came only weeks after the homeowner rejected a settlement offer, made under duress, in response to their threats to defame Tycat into insolvency and was advised by their counsel that I have been forced into bankruptcy by their breach of contract.Please also note that I am a licensed General Contractor in the State of Pennsylvania and have not, to the best of my knowledge, operated outside the guidelines set forth by the state. While there was an unfortunate incident with a Sub-contractor contracted to complete certain aspects of the work, I acted swiftly and decisively at the time to rectify the situation by immediately contacting the local police department and collaborated with them to facilitate their arrest. I also provided monetary compensation in an amount equal to the damages ($60) plus other "additions" at no charge with a value of $500. At the time the homeowner advised that this restitution on behalf of my subcontractor would settle the matter in its entirety. The homeowner also acknowledged that this was an act of a Subcontractor, not an employee, and that they did not believe their actions reflected the core values of Tycat Consulting nor believed that Tycat Consulting had any control of their actions.The borough did in fact issue a stop work order which I did comply with. However, I was able to negotiate terms with the Borough to properly weatherproof the structure to prevent damage to the home. After those negotiations were made, me and Mr. Homeowner sat down for a meeting during which I agreed to pay for an additional permitting fee ($200) out of pocket along with labor and material to properly weather proof the structure ($1,500) as compensation for the "inconvenience." After the homeowner received payment and delivery of the materials necessary to properly weatherproof the structure and work had begun (but not completed), the homeowner advised me that my crew was not to return to the premises and would not be allowed to retrieve tools, equipment, and material at the site valued at over $700. The homeowner was advised that the roof of the structure was not properly weatherproofed and that felt paper would not withstand any protracted period of exposure; the homeowner subsequently advised he would complete the weatherproofing himself. In fact, according to his statement, he did not weatherproof the structure and is now seeking payment for ensuingdamages as a result of his negligence. I cannot make any statement to the current condition of the structure since we have not been given access for over six months.Tycat did note several inconspicuous items that were not completed by the Subcontractor according to design. However it is my professional opinion that these items, although outside of design, are not in violation of code and would be deemed adequate by an engineer. I have not received any documentation from the Homeowner or the Building Inspector to corroborate the claim of code violation. Further, if in fact there were code violations I was both under contract and willing to remedy these items; but have not been given any details or an opportunity to do so. Further, any claim that a Building Department will not issue a building permit due to code violations is patently false: Work is only allowable under a permit whether that work is new construction, renovations, or code upgrades.Please also be advised that I have the position that the Homeowner is intentionally misrepresenting damages outlined in their complaint to increase their claim amount. Please see the following breakdown:Down Payment ($7,350.00): This down payment amount must be adjusted down $175 for fees incurred by myself as a result of payment being made by a fraudulent check. Further this payment represents 40% of the contract value: The structure was 60% complete at the time Tycat was removed from the project.Repairs and Removal ($5,070): As mentioned above Tycat was in the process of weatherproofing the structure to prevent any damage when we were removed, however that work was not complete. Any damages thereafter are the direct result of the homeowner's lack of action to remedy the situation.Electrical Panel ($950): The service panel was replaced under a separate contract and was accepted by the homeowner.Move A/C ($1,000): Before construction began the homeowner's AC unit was not functioning due to a leak in the compressor. Under recommendation of another vendor they opted to replace the unit at which time the contracted directly with that vendor. The relocation of AC unit was removed from our scope and therefore we cannot be held responsible for that cost. The homeowner was credited $1,200; effectively reducing the contract value to $17,177.00Restocking Fee ($1,200): The windows and doors for this project were purchased from [redacted] does not charge a restocking fee. Further, the homeowner has indicated their intent to proceed with the structure using these windows and doors therefore nothing would be returned.Despite these fabricated and/or disingenuous figures the homeowner has alleged, my direct losses, and under threat of defamation I still offered to settle with the Homeowner in the following ways:1) Complete the project at the contract value with any code violations remedied: Rejected.2) Pay $5,000: Rejected3) Pay $5,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: Rejected4) Pay $10,000: Rejected5) Pay $10,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: Rejected
In summary, despite the Homeowner's misrepresentation, there were two issues that occurred during this project both of which occurred without my intention or malice but nonetheless were misfortunate: 1) A subcontractor acted independently to steal $60 worth of goods from the homeowner, and 2) There was a work stoppage issued as a result of an offset issue. In both circumstances I acted immediately to remedy the situation, protect our investment, and made many concessions to compensate for the two issues. I have suffered losses to the benefit of the homeowner in excess of $2,900 not to include the negative equity invested to move the project to a point of completion past what I have been compensated for. It is my belief that the Homeowner is seeking to leverage payment in excess of any actual damage by intentionally misrepresenting facts to irreparably harm my reputation and character so that they can complete their project at no cost to them. Under duress from the threat of this damage I made several generous attempts to settle this matter. However, after these repeated attempts having been rejected and the homeowner's counsel advising a lawsuit I was forced to fiie bankruptcy. It was only when the homeowner was advised of my bankruptcy that he filed this and other complaints in a continued attempt to leverage payment in direct violation of bankruptcy laws.After failed attempts to convince the homeowner to correct their malicious misrepresentations a defamation suit is being filed against them; an injunction against this and other similarly defaming complaints is expected forthwith. I kindly request this matter be withheld from publication for an appropriate amount of time to allow the legal merit of this claim to be determined.
Kind Regards,
Lane [redacted] ###-###-#### [redacted]- Counsel File

Review: Tycat Consulting (Lane J[redacted]) advertised and accepted a contract without first obtaining a HICPA number which is required by law. They started construction of our porch without a building permit after being specifically instructed not to do so. This is also against the law. We received a stop work order from the Borough and a visit from the building inspector. The inspector noted several code violations and will not issue the permit unless substantial renovations are made. Tycat employees entered our home and stole property and were subsequently arrested and charged. An employee broke our skylight when working on the roof. When Lane J[redacted] was informed of the code violations and other problems he disappeared and will not accept phone calls or answer email. This extremely unprofessional act has cost my wife and I over $15,000.Desired Settlement: We would like our down payment returned plus the cost to remove the existing structure, repair our roof and siding and replace the broken skylight. We have quotes from various companies that total in excess of $15,000. We have informed Lane J[redacted] we would accept a settlement of $15,000. This was rejected.

Business

Response:

Date: 23 December 2015 Letter: [redacted]- Revdex.com [redacted] Ms. [redacted]This letter is in response to the complaint I received on 19 December 2015 (ID listed above). Please be advised I am not in agreement with nearly all points of the homeowner's complaint. It is our position this complaint is an attempt to intentionally misrepresent facts to defame Tycat Consulting to leverage a payoff in excess of any damages incurred by the homeowner. This fact is evidenced by the homeowner's repeated claim to "just write a check and I will make all these problems go away" and threatening to alienate me from my church community by misrepresenting the situation to my pastor and other members of our congregation whom he knows personally. Please note this complaint came only weeks after the homeowner rejected a settlement offer, made under duress, in response to their threats to defame Tycat into insolvency and was advised by their counsel that I have been forced into bankruptcy by their breach of contract.Please also note that I am a licensed General Contractor in the State of Pennsylvania and have not, to the best of my knowledge, operated outside the guidelines set forth by the state. While there was an unfortunate incident with a Sub-contractor contracted to complete certain aspects of the work, I acted swiftly and decisively at the time to rectify the situation by immediately contacting the local police department and collaborated with them to facilitate their arrest. I also provided monetary compensation in an amount equal to the damages ($60) plus other "additions" at no charge with a value of $500. At the time the homeowner advised that this restitution on behalf of my subcontractor would settle the matter in its entirety. The homeowner also acknowledged that this was an act of a Subcontractor, not an employee, and that they did not believe their actions reflected the core values of Tycat Consulting nor believed that Tycat Consulting had any control of their actions.The borough did in fact issue a stop work order which I did comply with. However, I was able to negotiate terms with the Borough to properly weatherproof the structure to prevent damage to the home. After those negotiations were made, me and Mr. Homeowner sat down for a meeting during which I agreed to pay for an additional permitting fee ($200) out of pocket along with labor and material to properly weather proof the structure ($1,500) as compensation for the "inconvenience." After the homeowner received payment and delivery of the materials necessary to properly weatherproof the structure and work had begun (but not completed), the homeowner advised me that my crew was not to return to the premises and would not be allowed to retrieve tools, equipment, and material at the site valued at over $700. The homeowner was advised that the roof of the structure was not properly weatherproofed and that felt paper would not withstand any protracted period of exposure; the homeowner subsequently advised he would complete the weatherproofing himself. In fact, according to his statement, he did not weatherproof the structure and is now seeking payment for ensuingdamages as a result of his negligence. I cannot make any statement to the current condition of the structure since we have not been given access for over six months.Tycat did note several inconspicuous items that were not completed by the Subcontractor according to design. However it is my professional opinion that these items, although outside of design, are not in violation of code and would be deemed adequate by an engineer. I have not received any documentation from the Homeowner or the Building Inspector to corroborate the claim of code violation. Further, if in fact there were code violations I was both under contract and willing to remedy these items; but have not been given any details or an opportunity to do so. Further, any claim that a Building Department will not issue a building permit due to code violations is patently false: Work is only allowable under a permit whether that work is new construction, renovations, or code upgrades.Please also be advised that I have the position that the Homeowner is intentionally misrepresenting damages outlined in their complaint to increase their claim amount. Please see the following breakdown:Down Payment ($7,350.00): This down payment amount must be adjusted down $175 for fees incurred by myself as a result of payment being made by a fraudulent check. Further this payment represents 40% of the contract value: The structure was 60% complete at the time Tycat was removed from the project.Repairs and Removal ($5,070): As mentioned above Tycat was in the process of weatherproofing the structure to prevent any damage when we were removed, however that work was not complete. Any damages thereafter are the direct result of the homeowner's lack of action to remedy the situation.Electrical Panel ($950): The service panel was replaced under a separate contract and was accepted by the homeowner.Move A/C ($1,000): Before construction began the homeowner's AC unit was not functioning due to a leak in the compressor. Under recommendation of another vendor they opted to replace the unit at which time the contracted directly with that vendor. The relocation of AC unit was removed from our scope and therefore we cannot be held responsible for that cost. The homeowner was credited $1,200; effectively reducing the contract value to $17,177.00Restocking Fee ($1,200): The windows and doors for this project were purchased from [redacted]. [redacted] does not charge a restocking fee. Further, the homeowner has indicated their intent to proceed with the structure using these windows and doors therefore nothing would be returned.Despite these fabricated and/or disingenuous figures the homeowner has alleged, my direct losses, and under threat of defamation I still offered to settle with the Homeowner in the following ways:1) Complete the project at the contract value with any code violations remedied: Rejected.2) Pay $5,000: Rejected3) Pay $5,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: Rejected4) Pay $10,000: Rejected5) Pay $10,000, remove the structure and return the property to a pre-construction condition: RejectedIn summary, despite the Homeowner's misrepresentation, there were two issues that occurred during this project both of which occurred without my intention or malice but nonetheless were misfortunate: 1) A subcontractor acted independently to steal $60 worth of goods from the homeowner, and 2) There was a work stoppage issued as a result of an offset issue. In both circumstances I acted immediately to remedy the situation, protect our investment, and made many concessions to compensate for the two issues. I have suffered losses to the benefit of the homeowner in excess of $2,900 not to include the negative equity invested to move the project to a point of completion past what I have been compensated for. It is my belief that the Homeowner is seeking to leverage payment in excess of any actual damage by intentionally misrepresenting facts to irreparably harm my reputation and character so that they can complete their project at no cost to them. Under duress from the threat of this damage I made several generous attempts to settle this matter. However, after these repeated attempts having been rejected and the homeowner's counsel advising a lawsuit I was forced to fiie bankruptcy. It was only when the homeowner was advised of my bankruptcy that he filed this and other complaints in a continued attempt to leverage payment in direct violation of bankruptcy laws.After failed attempts to convince the homeowner to correct their malicious misrepresentations a defamation suit is being filed against them; an injunction against this and other similarly defaming complaints is expected forthwith. I kindly request this matter be withheld from publication for an appropriate amount of time to allow the legal merit of this claim to be determined.Kind Regards,Lane [redacted] ###-###-#### [redacted]CC[redacted]- Counsel File