West Coast Tank Recovery and Drainage Reviews (%countItem)
West Coast Tank Recovery and Drainage Rating
Address: 1489 Harold Rd, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V7J 1X2
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Web: |
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for West Coast Tank Recovery and Drainage
Add new contacts
West Coast Tank Removal and West Coast Drainage recent helped us out with an underground oil tank which ruptured causing us major troubles. From the moment we called Lucas to the final finishing of the job which included replacing exterior drainage, sump, etc we were looked after with the utmost care. Lucas and Dean were so helpful, reassuring and thorough during the entire job which took several months due to environment issues and testing Their workers were very respectful of us and our property... a great group of guys. An overall great experience with West Coast during such a difficult financial draining time.
West Coast Tank Removal and West Coast Drainage recent helped us out with an underground oil tank which ruptured causing us major troubles. From the moment we called Lucas to the final finishing of the job which included replacing exterior drainage, sump, etc we were looked after with the utmost care. Lucas and Dean were so helpful, reassuring and thorough during the entire job which took several months due to environment issues and testing Their workers were very respectful of us and our property... a great group of guys. An overall great experience with West Coast during such a difficult financial draining time.
West Coast Drainage did and efficient and correct replacement of the perimeter drainage at the back of one of our strata complex buildings, and it was completed on time.
West Coast Drainage did and efficient and correct replacement of the perimeter drainage at the back of one of our strata complex buildings, and it was completed on time.
Below is a copy of the letter I provided to West Coast explaining why I want a reimbursement of the $288.75 I paid to them for their camera inspection. The letter was hand delivered to***
***
West Coast Drainage
***
Dear Mr., Feb. 26, 2018
I am requesting a refund for the $288.75 that I paid to WCD in December 2017. I paid for camera work that was significantly faulty, incomplete, and, therefore, led to an unjustifiably expensive recommendation from WCD. Had I agreed to WCD's recommendation, I would have incurred a cost of about $24,000, as compared to the $3,000 or less for the actual repair work I will incur.
In December I asked your company to investigate the cause of the rainwater entering our basement and to provide a quote for fixing the problem. Our house is 44 years old and has perforated perimeter drainage pipe.
*** came to our house on Dec 12 and I showed him the place in the basement where the water was entering the basement. The location was the n/e corner of the house through the cove seam; about 3 feet along the east wall and 5 feet along the north wall. I told *** the problem started in 2017, and that the water only entered during a sustained rain over several days. I also told him that I had done a garden hose test when there was no rainfall; the water would enter the basement with the hose running for about 5 hours in the adjacent garden but if I put the hose in the rain water leader opening at the n/e corner for at least 8 hours no water entered the basement.
*** told me that to diagnose the problem he would have to inspect the perimeter pipe with a camera. He put a camera in the s/e corner opening. He said he pushed it northwards to the n/e corner and then south-westwards to about halfway under the carport slab where, he said, he could push the camera no further. He said that there was a considerable amount of sand in the pipe under the house and slab and that there was probably a lake under the slab. He also said there was a "high point" defect in the pipe slope about midway along the east side of the house. He did not camera inspect the west side of the house because the rain leader needed to be removed (the removal would have taken about 5 minutes).
*** told me that to solve the problem we needed a new drainage system around the entire house which WCD would do for $19k (this would include cutting a trench through the entire width of the carport slab). I would have to also pay about $5K to have the concrete sidewalks replaced by another company. A few days later I asked *** why the entire system needed replacing when the problem seemed to be isolated to the n/e corner. He then provided a second proposal that would replace half the system (which included rerouting the pipe around the back of the carport to the west side) for a cost of $11k. The sidewalk and asphalt replacement would have cost me at least an additional $3k.
*** had told me that hydro-jetting out the sand in the pipe under the house and carport slab would not work because the wet sand outside the pipe would then seep into the pipe. So, I decided that I would try to vacuum out the pipe that supposedly ran from the n/e corner south-westwards under the slab. I exposed the pipe at the n/e corner of the house where the water was coming into the house. To my surprise, I could see that the pipe runs along the north side of the house up to the carport and makes a right angle turn north at the outside of the carport ***. I had not exposed the pipe beyond this point so I rented a camera with locator. I determined that the pipe continues north outside the carport slab and stops at the n/e corner of the carport. The pipe does not run under the house or carport slab, contrary to what *** said!
I vacuumed out the pipe that is adjacent to where the water enters the basement. I then ran water into the trench for about 30 hours and the water seeped into the pipe and drained to the sump. No water entered the basement. The pebbles (from the tar-gravel roof) and sand/dirt in the pipe caused the problem. The "high point" defect on the east side did not contribute to the water ingress.
The cost to clean out the pipe at the n/e corner would have been about $3k if I had hired someone to do all the work instead of doing some myself. This is about $21k less than if I had not found WCD's error, and accepted WCD's recommendation.
Based on the significantly faulty camera diagnosis, no camera analysis of the west side and unjustifiably expensive solution that WCD recommended, I am requesting a full refund of the $288.75 I paid to WCD.
WCD should have provided an accurate and complete camera inspection, and then given me an appropriate recommendation based on that inspection.
Initial Business Response /(1000, 7, 2018/04/12) */
To ensure customer satisfaction, WCD agrees to provide the consumer a refund of $288.75. Consumer has agreed through email conversation that refund is satisfactory ***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /(3000, 14, 2018/05/15) */
Hello ***
I inadvertently overlooked your April 16 email to me. I apologize for this. I have not been in good health recently.
I am satisfied with West Coast Drainage's ( WCD) response that they will provide a refund to me. However, I have not received the refund yet. I spoke with Mr. of WCD a few minutes ago. He told me he would look into this.
I want to keep my complaint open until I receive the refund.
Thank-you.
***
Final Business Response /(4000, 16, 2018/05/17) */
Customer advised WCD office on May 14th 2018 that refund not received in the mail. Appears cheque lost in mail.
New refund cheque of $288.75 was placed in mail on following day, May 15th.
Customer refunded as requested, complaint should now be closed as per customer agreement.
Below is a copy of the letter I provided to West Coast explaining why I want a reimbursement of the $288.75 I paid to them for their camera inspection. The letter was hand delivered to***
***
West Coast Drainage
***
Dear Mr., Feb. 26, 2018
I am requesting a refund for the $288.75 that I paid to WCD in December 2017. I paid for camera work that was significantly faulty, incomplete, and, therefore, led to an unjustifiably expensive recommendation from WCD. Had I agreed to WCD's recommendation, I would have incurred a cost of about $24,000, as compared to the $3,000 or less for the actual repair work I will incur.
In December I asked your company to investigate the cause of the rainwater entering our basement and to provide a quote for fixing the problem. Our house is 44 years old and has perforated perimeter drainage pipe.
*** came to our house on Dec 12 and I showed him the place in the basement where the water was entering the basement. The location was the n/e corner of the house through the cove seam; about 3 feet along the east wall and 5 feet along the north wall. I told *** the problem started in 2017, and that the water only entered during a sustained rain over several days. I also told him that I had done a garden hose test when there was no rainfall; the water would enter the basement with the hose running for about 5 hours in the adjacent garden but if I put the hose in the rain water leader opening at the n/e corner for at least 8 hours no water entered the basement.
*** told me that to diagnose the problem he would have to inspect the perimeter pipe with a camera. He put a camera in the s/e corner opening. He said he pushed it northwards to the n/e corner and then south-westwards to about halfway under the carport slab where, he said, he could push the camera no further. He said that there was a considerable amount of sand in the pipe under the house and slab and that there was probably a lake under the slab. He also said there was a "high point" defect in the pipe slope about midway along the east side of the house. He did not camera inspect the west side of the house because the rain leader needed to be removed (the removal would have taken about 5 minutes).
*** told me that to solve the problem we needed a new drainage system around the entire house which WCD would do for $19k (this would include cutting a trench through the entire width of the carport slab). I would have to also pay about $5K to have the concrete sidewalks replaced by another company. A few days later I asked *** why the entire system needed replacing when the problem seemed to be isolated to the n/e corner. He then provided a second proposal that would replace half the system (which included rerouting the pipe around the back of the carport to the west side) for a cost of $11k. The sidewalk and asphalt replacement would have cost me at least an additional $3k.
*** had told me that hydro-jetting out the sand in the pipe under the house and carport slab would not work because the wet sand outside the pipe would then seep into the pipe. So, I decided that I would try to vacuum out the pipe that supposedly ran from the n/e corner south-westwards under the slab. I exposed the pipe at the n/e corner of the house where the water was coming into the house. To my surprise, I could see that the pipe runs along the north side of the house up to the carport and makes a right angle turn north at the outside of the carport ***. I had not exposed the pipe beyond this point so I rented a camera with locator. I determined that the pipe continues north outside the carport slab and stops at the n/e corner of the carport. The pipe does not run under the house or carport slab, contrary to what *** said!
I vacuumed out the pipe that is adjacent to where the water enters the basement. I then ran water into the trench for about 30 hours and the water seeped into the pipe and drained to the sump. No water entered the basement. The pebbles (from the tar-gravel roof) and sand/dirt in the pipe caused the problem. The "high point" defect on the east side did not contribute to the water ingress.
The cost to clean out the pipe at the n/e corner would have been about $3k if I had hired someone to do all the work instead of doing some myself. This is about $21k less than if I had not found WCD's error, and accepted WCD's recommendation.
Based on the significantly faulty camera diagnosis, no camera analysis of the west side and unjustifiably expensive solution that WCD recommended, I am requesting a full refund of the $288.75 I paid to WCD.
WCD should have provided an accurate and complete camera inspection, and then given me an appropriate recommendation based on that inspection.
Initial Business Response /(1000, 7, 2018/04/12) */
To ensure customer satisfaction, WCD agrees to provide the consumer a refund of $288.75. Consumer has agreed through email conversation that refund is satisfactory ***
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /(3000, 14, 2018/05/15) */
Hello ***
I inadvertently overlooked your April 16 email to me. I apologize for this. I have not been in good health recently.
I am satisfied with West Coast Drainage's ( WCD) response that they will provide a refund to me. However, I have not received the refund yet. I spoke with Mr. of WCD a few minutes ago. He told me he would look into this.
I want to keep my complaint open until I receive the refund.
Thank-you.
***
Final Business Response /(4000, 16, 2018/05/17) */
Customer advised WCD office on May 14th 2018 that refund not received in the mail. Appears cheque lost in mail.
New refund cheque of $288.75 was placed in mail on following day, May 15th.
Customer refunded as requested, complaint should now be closed as per customer agreement.
WCTR was supposed to fill in the hole after excavating my old oil tank. They failed to do so satisfactorily. I had to spend three hours of my own time to a) fill in the hole where they had taken shortcuts and b) clean the mud splashed on the back of my house including door, siding and barbecue which they failed to adequately protect in the first instance and failed to clean up in the second instance. Additionally, they placed a fuel surcharge on the final bill that was not in the initial quote. I have asked for a full refund of this surcharge plus the GST charged - they have failed to do this as of this date. Lastly, their workers caused significant property damage to my deck chairs because they didn't bring the right equipment for the job in the first place. The Office manager, Lucas, refuses to even talk about this and has now stated that he considers any contact with him as 'harrassment'
Initial Business Response /(1000, 6, 2017/11/29) */
West Coast was hired by *** to remove an underground heating Oil Tank under a concrete pad on his property, which is for sale. Upon providing *** with a contract which he signed, West Coast completed the work. The contract had a clause which clearly stated: "Repair and/or replacement of landscaping or structures removed to access the Oil Tank is the sole responsibility of the property owner".
1) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Days after the Oil Tank removal and subsequent filling in of the hole, *** emailed our office claiming that we did not in fact back-fill properly. We DID in fact back-fill, but normal settlement occurred. After informing *** that settlement is completely natural and usually 4-6 weeks later that additional material should be added and compacted by whomever is repairing the concrete/landscaping, he did not accept that claim.
2) On a goodwill basis, WCTR sent a crew to his propert a SECOND time and brought over a half yard of material to fill any voids. There was a minuscule void in which our crew needed barely any more material to rectify the issue. We have a PHOTO of the finished work proving it being complete. We look forward to showing it to anybody.
Our office did in fact email you an invoice, and your wife reviewed it with our office on the phone. We were specifically asked by you to deal with your wife directly and collect a credit card payment because you were away on business.***
2) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Our contract clearly states that restoration of the area and new landscaping is not included in our scope of work, and we have photos to show the work being completed contrary to your claims.
3) Regarding possible damage to the yard belongings- it was many weeks after the work was done that we received this complaint. We have asked *** several times now for photos or proof of WCTR crew damaging the items on his property and if received, we would have gladly taken care of the issue, if any. We have received nothing. Anything or anybody could have worn off power coating on his patio furniture- it may simply be wear and tear and we do not accept the assertion that it was WCTR who damaged them.
4) A refund cheque was in fact mailed to *** and we have never argued that. It was $2 short. We have committed to leaving a $2 coin in his mailbox to rectify this. The fee was for a standard 2.75% fuel surcharge which many contractors charge on their invoices.
We have tried apologizing to *** several times for misunderstandings and his concerns. Unfortunately it seems nothing we do satisfies this customer and every week an email is sent to our office with a new issue he thought of. We look forward to showing the photos of our COMPLETED work to the Revdex.com and any current or potential customers who want proof that WCTR completed the work professionally and in good faith.
-West Coast Tank Recovery
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /(4200, 12, 2017/12/13) */
With regards to WCTR's resonse(s) please see my responses below in red:
West Coast was hired by *** to remove an underground heating Oil Tank under a concrete pad on his property, which is for sale. Upon providing *** with a contract which he signed, West Coast completed the work. The contract had a clause which clearly stated: "Repair and/or replacement of landscaping or structures removed to access the Oil Tank is the sole responsibility of the property owner".
1) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Days after the Oil Tank removal and subsequent filling in of the hole, *** emailed our office claiming that we did not in fact back-fill properly. We DID in fact back-fill, but normal settlement occurred. After informing *** that settlement is completely natural and usually 4-6 weeks later that additional material should be added and compacted by whomever is repairing the concrete/landscaping, he did not accept that claim.
Consumer response:
The hole was NOT back-filled correctly. During excavation soil form the side walls of the hole caved in. Due to the fact that access was through a layer of stamped concrete this created an overhang on one side. No attempt was made to place fill in that area. ***
2) On a goodwill basis, WCTR sent a crew to his propert a SECOND time and brought over a half yard of material to fill any voids. There was a minuscule void in which our crew needed barely any more material to rectify the issue. We have a PHOTO of the finished work proving it being complete. We look forward to showing it to anybody.
The crew did in fact come back a second time after repeated calls by myself to make sure the job was done correctly. *** for a second time failed to back-fill the void correctly. (See attached pictures) ***
Our office did in fact email you an invoice, and your wife reviewed it with our office on the phone. We were specifically asked by you to deal with your wife directly and collect a credit card payment because you were away on business. ***
Consumer Response: The above statement is a complete fabrication.
WCTR did phone my wife - *** I had specifically told him to send me an invoice. My intent was to pay by cheque not CC. The invoice was only sent AFTER the CC payment was processed. *** The only time I mentioned to deal with my wife was for backyard access.
2) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Our contract clearly states that restoration of the area and new landscaping is not included in our scope of work, and we have photos to show the work being completed contrary to your claims.
Consumer Response:
I have photos showing the workmanship was shoody and incomplete. They did not fill the void - their photo only shows how they covered up their poor work. The void in question is underneath the stamped concrete and cannot be seen from above ground as the entrance is concealed by pile of sand on top of the area that had no issues. The material needed to be placed underneath the concrete where the void had formed form the land slip during initial excavation.
3) Regarding possible damage to the yard belongings- it was many weeks after the work was done that we received this complaint. We have asked *** several times now for photos or proof of WCTR crew damaging the items on his property and if received, we would have gladly taken care of the issue, if any. We have received nothing. Anything or anybody could have worn off power coating on his patio furniture- it may simply be wear and tear and we do not accept the assertion that it was WCTR who damaged them.
Consumer Response:
*** Unfortunately, I do not have written proof of this exchange as it was done verbally over the telephone.
Nevertheless, I told Lucas of my concerns not weeks later but days later. My wife witnessed their excavator knocking my deck chairs into the hole as the workers on site failed to move the makeshift 'safety fence' out of the way before back filling began.
***
4) A refund cheque was in fact mailed to *** and we have never argued that. It was $2 short. We have committed to leaving a $2 coin in his mailbox to rectify this. The fee was for a standard 2.75% fuel surcharge which many contractors charge on their invoices.
Consumer response;
I have received a cheque for $31.84 and have ner=ver argued that either, however, it was for the incorrect amount. There is still $1.59 outstanding on the hidden charge. *** Regardless, whether or not this is a 'standard" surcharge that 'many contractors charge on their invoices' it was not in their itemized estimate nor was it mentioned at any time. The first I learned of it was when I saw the PAID invoice***
We have tried apologizing to *** several times for misunderstandings and his concerns. Unfortunately it seems nothing we do satisfies this customer and every week an email is sent to our office with a new issue he thought of. We look forward to showing the photos of our COMPLETED work to the Revdex.com and any current or potential customers who want proof that WCTR completed the work professionally and in good faith.
Consumer response:
*** At NO time has Lucas or anyone at WCTR apologized or attempted to apologize to myself or my wife. *** I have never asked him about landscaping repair this was about damage to the hardscape and personal property damage.
*** All I have ever asked for was a) refund of the hidden surcharge b) restitution of the damaged deck chairs and c) to do the job properly as stipulated in the contract all of this was communicated at one time and not meted out.
I have not asked for repair of the hard scape in my backyard though I feel I am in my right s to do so but on the above points
a) Still awaiting the GST amount charged
b) They are still denying responsibility
c) The job was never completed satisfactorily - I had to do it myself
***
***
I categorically reject all of WCTR'c claims as stated above and wish to proceed with this complaint.
I welcome the opportunity to show you photos, emails or texts which will back up my claims.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
***
Final Business Response /(4000, 15, 2017/12/15) */
DEC 14TH 2017- The photo that the consumer has submitted was BEFORE we sent our crew a second time on a good will basis to add more material to the area. I have submitted that photo.
The consumer is claiming we did not back-fill. Its quite clear from all photos that we did back-fill.
The consumer is having trouble understanding that settlement of material in a hole is natural and occurs frequently. It is the responsibility of the property owner, not us, to top up the material when they repair their landscaping (grass, concrete, paving stones, etc).
WCTR has no other information at this time and categorically rejects this consumers complaint. We have evidence that we did our part and completed the work. We also provided the client with his refund as her his request.
WCTR was supposed to fill in the hole after excavating my old oil tank. They failed to do so satisfactorily. I had to spend three hours of my own time to a) fill in the hole where they had taken shortcuts and b) clean the mud splashed on the back of my house including door, siding and barbecue which they failed to adequately protect in the first instance and failed to clean up in the second instance. Additionally, they placed a fuel surcharge on the final bill that was not in the initial quote. I have asked for a full refund of this surcharge plus the GST charged - they have failed to do this as of this date. Lastly, their workers caused significant property damage to my deck chairs because they didn't bring the right equipment for the job in the first place. The Office manager, Lucas, refuses to even talk about this and has now stated that he considers any contact with him as 'harrassment'
Initial Business Response /(1000, 6, 2017/11/29) */
West Coast was hired by *** to remove an underground heating Oil Tank under a concrete pad on his property, which is for sale. Upon providing *** with a contract which he signed, West Coast completed the work. The contract had a clause which clearly stated: "Repair and/or replacement of landscaping or structures removed to access the Oil Tank is the sole responsibility of the property owner".
1) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Days after the Oil Tank removal and subsequent filling in of the hole, *** emailed our office claiming that we did not in fact back-fill properly. We DID in fact back-fill, but normal settlement occurred. After informing *** that settlement is completely natural and usually 4-6 weeks later that additional material should be added and compacted by whomever is repairing the concrete/landscaping, he did not accept that claim.
2) On a goodwill basis, WCTR sent a crew to his propert a SECOND time and brought over a half yard of material to fill any voids. There was a minuscule void in which our crew needed barely any more material to rectify the issue. We have a PHOTO of the finished work proving it being complete. We look forward to showing it to anybody.
Our office did in fact email you an invoice, and your wife reviewed it with our office on the phone. We were specifically asked by you to deal with your wife directly and collect a credit card payment because you were away on business.***
2) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Our contract clearly states that restoration of the area and new landscaping is not included in our scope of work, and we have photos to show the work being completed contrary to your claims.
3) Regarding possible damage to the yard belongings- it was many weeks after the work was done that we received this complaint. We have asked *** several times now for photos or proof of WCTR crew damaging the items on his property and if received, we would have gladly taken care of the issue, if any. We have received nothing. Anything or anybody could have worn off power coating on his patio furniture- it may simply be wear and tear and we do not accept the assertion that it was WCTR who damaged them.
4) A refund cheque was in fact mailed to *** and we have never argued that. It was $2 short. We have committed to leaving a $2 coin in his mailbox to rectify this. The fee was for a standard 2.75% fuel surcharge which many contractors charge on their invoices.
We have tried apologizing to *** several times for misunderstandings and his concerns. Unfortunately it seems nothing we do satisfies this customer and every week an email is sent to our office with a new issue he thought of. We look forward to showing the photos of our COMPLETED work to the Revdex.com and any current or potential customers who want proof that WCTR completed the work professionally and in good faith.
-West Coast Tank Recovery
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /(4200, 12, 2017/12/13) */
With regards to WCTR's resonse(s) please see my responses below in red:
West Coast was hired by *** to remove an underground heating Oil Tank under a concrete pad on his property, which is for sale. Upon providing *** with a contract which he signed, West Coast completed the work. The contract had a clause which clearly stated: "Repair and/or replacement of landscaping or structures removed to access the Oil Tank is the sole responsibility of the property owner".
1) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Days after the Oil Tank removal and subsequent filling in of the hole, *** emailed our office claiming that we did not in fact back-fill properly. We DID in fact back-fill, but normal settlement occurred. After informing *** that settlement is completely natural and usually 4-6 weeks later that additional material should be added and compacted by whomever is repairing the concrete/landscaping, he did not accept that claim.
Consumer response:
The hole was NOT back-filled correctly. During excavation soil form the side walls of the hole caved in. Due to the fact that access was through a layer of stamped concrete this created an overhang on one side. No attempt was made to place fill in that area. ***
2) On a goodwill basis, WCTR sent a crew to his propert a SECOND time and brought over a half yard of material to fill any voids. There was a minuscule void in which our crew needed barely any more material to rectify the issue. We have a PHOTO of the finished work proving it being complete. We look forward to showing it to anybody.
The crew did in fact come back a second time after repeated calls by myself to make sure the job was done correctly. *** for a second time failed to back-fill the void correctly. (See attached pictures) ***
Our office did in fact email you an invoice, and your wife reviewed it with our office on the phone. We were specifically asked by you to deal with your wife directly and collect a credit card payment because you were away on business. ***
Consumer Response: The above statement is a complete fabrication.
WCTR did phone my wife - *** I had specifically told him to send me an invoice. My intent was to pay by cheque not CC. The invoice was only sent AFTER the CC payment was processed. *** The only time I mentioned to deal with my wife was for backyard access.
2) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Our contract clearly states that restoration of the area and new landscaping is not included in our scope of work, and we have photos to show the work being completed contrary to your claims.
Consumer Response:
I have photos showing the workmanship was shoody and incomplete. They did not fill the void - their photo only shows how they covered up their poor work. The void in question is underneath the stamped concrete and cannot be seen from above ground as the entrance is concealed by pile of sand on top of the area that had no issues. The material needed to be placed underneath the concrete where the void had formed form the land slip during initial excavation.
3) Regarding possible damage to the yard belongings- it was many weeks after the work was done that we received this complaint. We have asked *** several times now for photos or proof of WCTR crew damaging the items on his property and if received, we would have gladly taken care of the issue, if any. We have received nothing. Anything or anybody could have worn off power coating on his patio furniture- it may simply be wear and tear and we do not accept the assertion that it was WCTR who damaged them.
Consumer Response:
*** Unfortunately, I do not have written proof of this exchange as it was done verbally over the telephone.
Nevertheless, I told Lucas of my concerns not weeks later but days later. My wife witnessed their excavator knocking my deck chairs into the hole as the workers on site failed to move the makeshift 'safety fence' out of the way before back filling began.
***
4) A refund cheque was in fact mailed to *** and we have never argued that. It was $2 short. We have committed to leaving a $2 coin in his mailbox to rectify this. The fee was for a standard 2.75% fuel surcharge which many contractors charge on their invoices.
Consumer response;
I have received a cheque for $31.84 and have ner=ver argued that either, however, it was for the incorrect amount. There is still $1.59 outstanding on the hidden charge. *** Regardless, whether or not this is a 'standard" surcharge that 'many contractors charge on their invoices' it was not in their itemized estimate nor was it mentioned at any time. The first I learned of it was when I saw the PAID invoice***
We have tried apologizing to *** several times for misunderstandings and his concerns. Unfortunately it seems nothing we do satisfies this customer and every week an email is sent to our office with a new issue he thought of. We look forward to showing the photos of our COMPLETED work to the Revdex.com and any current or potential customers who want proof that WCTR completed the work professionally and in good faith.
Consumer response:
*** At NO time has Lucas or anyone at WCTR apologized or attempted to apologize to myself or my wife. *** I have never asked him about landscaping repair this was about damage to the hardscape and personal property damage.
*** All I have ever asked for was a) refund of the hidden surcharge b) restitution of the damaged deck chairs and c) to do the job properly as stipulated in the contract all of this was communicated at one time and not meted out.
I have not asked for repair of the hard scape in my backyard though I feel I am in my right s to do so but on the above points
a) Still awaiting the GST amount charged
b) They are still denying responsibility
c) The job was never completed satisfactorily - I had to do it myself
***
***
I categorically reject all of WCTR'c claims as stated above and wish to proceed with this complaint.
I welcome the opportunity to show you photos, emails or texts which will back up my claims.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
***
Final Business Response /(4000, 15, 2017/12/15) */
DEC 14TH 2017- The photo that the consumer has submitted was BEFORE we sent our crew a second time on a good will basis to add more material to the area. I have submitted that photo.
The consumer is claiming we did not back-fill. Its quite clear from all photos that we did back-fill.
The consumer is having trouble understanding that settlement of material in a hole is natural and occurs frequently. It is the responsibility of the property owner, not us, to top up the material when they repair their landscaping (grass, concrete, paving stones, etc).
WCTR has no other information at this time and categorically rejects this consumers complaint. We have evidence that we did our part and completed the work. We also provided the client with his refund as her his request.
WCTR was supposed to fill in the hole after excavating my old oil tank. They failed to do so satisfactorily. I had to spend three hours of my own time to a) fill in the hole where they had taken shortcuts and b) clean the mud splashed on the back of my house including door, siding and barbecue which they failed to adequately protect in the first instance and failed to clean up in the second instance. Additionally, they placed a fuel surcharge on the final bill that was not in the initial quote. I have asked for a full refund of this surcharge plus the GST charged - they have failed to do this as of this date. Lastly, their workers caused significant property damage to my deck chairs because they didn't bring the right equipment for the job in the first place. The Office manager, Lucas, refuses to even talk about this and has now stated that he considers any contact with him as 'harrassment'
Initial Business Response /(1000, 6, 2017/11/29) */
West Coast was hired by *** to remove an underground heating Oil Tank under a concrete pad on his property, which is for sale. Upon providing *** with a contract which he signed, West Coast completed the work. The contract had a clause which clearly stated: "Repair and/or replacement of landscaping or structures removed to access the Oil Tank is the sole responsibility of the property owner".
1) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Days after the Oil Tank removal and subsequent filling in of the hole, *** emailed our office claiming that we did not in fact back-fill properly. We DID in fact back-fill, but normal settlement occurred. After informing *** that settlement is completely natural and usually 4-6 weeks later that additional material should be added and compacted by whomever is repairing the concrete/landscaping, he did not accept that claim.
2) On a goodwill basis, WCTR sent a crew to his propert a SECOND time and brought over a half yard of material to fill any voids. There was a minuscule void in which our crew needed barely any more material to rectify the issue. We have a PHOTO of the finished work proving it being complete. We look forward to showing it to anybody.
Our office did in fact email you an invoice, and your wife reviewed it with our office on the phone. We were specifically asked by you to deal with your wife directly and collect a credit card payment because you were away on business.***
2) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Our contract clearly states that restoration of the area and new landscaping is not included in our scope of work, and we have photos to show the work being completed contrary to your claims.
3) Regarding possible damage to the yard belongings- it was many weeks after the work was done that we received this complaint. We have asked *** several times now for photos or proof of WCTR crew damaging the items on his property and if received, we would have gladly taken care of the issue, if any. We have received nothing. Anything or anybody could have worn off power coating on his patio furniture- it may simply be wear and tear and we do not accept the assertion that it was WCTR who damaged them.
4) A refund cheque was in fact mailed to *** and we have never argued that. It was $2 short. We have committed to leaving a $2 coin in his mailbox to rectify this. The fee was for a standard 2.75% fuel surcharge which many contractors charge on their invoices.
We have tried apologizing to *** several times for misunderstandings and his concerns. Unfortunately it seems nothing we do satisfies this customer and every week an email is sent to our office with a new issue he thought of. We look forward to showing the photos of our COMPLETED work to the Revdex.com and any current or potential customers who want proof that WCTR completed the work professionally and in good faith.
-West Coast Tank Recovery
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /(4200, 12, 2017/12/13) */
With regards to WCTR's resonse(s) please see my responses below in red:
West Coast was hired by *** to remove an underground heating Oil Tank under a concrete pad on his property, which is for sale. Upon providing *** with a contract which he signed, West Coast completed the work. The contract had a clause which clearly stated: "Repair and/or replacement of landscaping or structures removed to access the Oil Tank is the sole responsibility of the property owner".
1) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Days after the Oil Tank removal and subsequent filling in of the hole, *** emailed our office claiming that we did not in fact back-fill properly. We DID in fact back-fill, but normal settlement occurred. After informing *** that settlement is completely natural and usually 4-6 weeks later that additional material should be added and compacted by whomever is repairing the concrete/landscaping, he did not accept that claim.
Consumer response:
The hole was NOT back-filled correctly. During excavation soil form the side walls of the hole caved in. Due to the fact that access was through a layer of stamped concrete this created an overhang on one side. No attempt was made to place fill in that area. ***
2) On a goodwill basis, WCTR sent a crew to his propert a SECOND time and brought over a half yard of material to fill any voids. There was a minuscule void in which our crew needed barely any more material to rectify the issue. We have a PHOTO of the finished work proving it being complete. We look forward to showing it to anybody.
The crew did in fact come back a second time after repeated calls by myself to make sure the job was done correctly. *** for a second time failed to back-fill the void correctly. (See attached pictures) ***
Our office did in fact email you an invoice, and your wife reviewed it with our office on the phone. We were specifically asked by you to deal with your wife directly and collect a credit card payment because you were away on business. ***
Consumer Response: The above statement is a complete fabrication.
WCTR did phone my wife - *** I had specifically told him to send me an invoice. My intent was to pay by cheque not CC. The invoice was only sent AFTER the CC payment was processed. *** The only time I mentioned to deal with my wife was for backyard access.
2) Our crew did in fact back-fill the void left in the ground. Our contract clearly states that restoration of the area and new landscaping is not included in our scope of work, and we have photos to show the work being completed contrary to your claims.
Consumer Response:
I have photos showing the workmanship was shoody and incomplete. They did not fill the void - their photo only shows how they covered up their poor work. The void in question is underneath the stamped concrete and cannot be seen from above ground as the entrance is concealed by pile of sand on top of the area that had no issues. The material needed to be placed underneath the concrete where the void had formed form the land slip during initial excavation.
3) Regarding possible damage to the yard belongings- it was many weeks after the work was done that we received this complaint. We have asked *** several times now for photos or proof of WCTR crew damaging the items on his property and if received, we would have gladly taken care of the issue, if any. We have received nothing. Anything or anybody could have worn off power coating on his patio furniture- it may simply be wear and tear and we do not accept the assertion that it was WCTR who damaged them.
Consumer Response:
*** Unfortunately, I do not have written proof of this exchange as it was done verbally over the telephone.
Nevertheless, I told Lucas of my concerns not weeks later but days later. My wife witnessed their excavator knocking my deck chairs into the hole as the workers on site failed to move the makeshift 'safety fence' out of the way before back filling began.
***
4) A refund cheque was in fact mailed to *** and we have never argued that. It was $2 short. We have committed to leaving a $2 coin in his mailbox to rectify this. The fee was for a standard 2.75% fuel surcharge which many contractors charge on their invoices.
Consumer response;
I have received a cheque for $31.84 and have ner=ver argued that either, however, it was for the incorrect amount. There is still $1.59 outstanding on the hidden charge. *** Regardless, whether or not this is a 'standard" surcharge that 'many contractors charge on their invoices' it was not in their itemized estimate nor was it mentioned at any time. The first I learned of it was when I saw the PAID invoice***
We have tried apologizing to *** several times for misunderstandings and his concerns. Unfortunately it seems nothing we do satisfies this customer and every week an email is sent to our office with a new issue he thought of. We look forward to showing the photos of our COMPLETED work to the Revdex.com and any current or potential customers who want proof that WCTR completed the work professionally and in good faith.
Consumer response:
*** At NO time has Lucas or anyone at WCTR apologized or attempted to apologize to myself or my wife. *** I have never asked him about landscaping repair this was about damage to the hardscape and personal property damage.
*** All I have ever asked for was a) refund of the hidden surcharge b) restitution of the damaged deck chairs and c) to do the job properly as stipulated in the contract all of this was communicated at one time and not meted out.
I have not asked for repair of the hard scape in my backyard though I feel I am in my right s to do so but on the above points
a) Still awaiting the GST amount charged
b) They are still denying responsibility
c) The job was never completed satisfactorily - I had to do it myself
***
***
I categorically reject all of WCTR'c claims as stated above and wish to proceed with this complaint.
I welcome the opportunity to show you photos, emails or texts which will back up my claims.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
***
Final Business Response /(4000, 15, 2017/12/15) */
DEC 14TH 2017- The photo that the consumer has submitted was BEFORE we sent our crew a second time on a good will basis to add more material to the area. I have submitted that photo.
The consumer is claiming we did not back-fill. Its quite clear from all photos that we did back-fill.
The consumer is having trouble understanding that settlement of material in a hole is natural and occurs frequently. It is the responsibility of the property owner, not us, to top up the material when they repair their landscaping (grass, concrete, paving stones, etc).
WCTR has no other information at this time and categorically rejects this consumers complaint. We have evidence that we did our part and completed the work. We also provided the client with his refund as her his request.