Ultrarize, LLC

I am rejecting this response because:
In response to Mr. [redacted]: The [redacted]'s did not "lock out" Ultrarize.  Locks were changed after Ultrarize removed themselves entirely from the property, including but not limited to: all building materials and supplies, all tools, all trailors, signage and advertisements.  There was nothing of ownership left on the property.  The [redacted]'s attempted to contact Ultrarize to set time and dates to access the home to complete all the contracted work.  Much of the work to be competed was still needed on the exterior, which did not require access into the home.  The [redacted]'s also had carpet installed at their expense, and personal items were brought into the home.  The locks needed to be changed for security reasons.  No delays in construction were caused by the [redacted]'s changes.  All changes were discussed with the builder and agreed upon between the two parties.  Delays were caused by the builder's lack of completion in a timely matter and use of non authorized materials. The home was inspected on April 9 by a state licensed building inspector.  Many code violations were identified in the construction practices of Ultrarize.  These were not construction code violations because of the "[redacted]'s decision to lock out Ultrarize" as stated by [redacted].  These were violations due to inadequate building practices and poor judgement as determined by a state licensed inspector.  As determined by the inspection, Mr. [redacted]'s building practices were not found to be entirely of a "workmanlike manner" as [redacted] further expressed.  I have included the report from the inspection services along with the e-mail confirming the findings by the MN Department of Labor and Industry.  There is an absence of any such "punch list".  A response of the inspection report was completed by Ultrarize, but it failed to identify the main construction violations and failed to address how they would clarify and correct the issues. To date, there has been no radon abatement system found in the home by inspectors or the department.   The amount offered to purchase the home was substantially lower than the [redacted]'s investment of land and construction costs. No allowances were granted in the construction and many construction costs came out of pocket for the [redacted]'s.  The offer was not for the total cost to build and purchase of the lot.  Thank you for considering this request of complaint.[redacted] and [redacted]

I represent Ultrarize, LLC and am writing in response to the [redacted] complaint. The [redacted] home was not finished to contract because the [redacted]’s locked out Ultrarize, LLC.  Delays caused in construction were primarily the result of changes to the plan required by the [redacted]’s.  The...

home was inspected and the inspector cited and photographed what he claimed were 38 code violations in the construction.  However, according to Ultrarize, many of the alleged violations were not violations but were incomplete items due to the [redacted]’s decision to lock out Ultrarize;  he cited work as being in non compliant when it was compliant; he cited the absence of code required systems, such as absence of a radon abatement system, when a radon abatement system is installed and functional within the home; he cited construction methods as being non-compliant with code when no code was applicable and the methods were industry accepted and performed in a workmanlike manner.  Ultrarize has fully responded to the MN Dept of Labor and Industry and to date, the Dept had not confirmed a single code violation cited by the inspector. Several items do need to be corrected as is addressed by a punch list for any construction and Ultrarize has offered to make those corrections at no cost to the [redacted]’s.   Finally, Ultrarize, LLC offered to purchase the home from the [redacted]’s for the total cost to build, including the price of the lot but they refused.    Your considerations in this regard are appreciated.   Patrick M. [redacted]