This member and I presented before the BBB arbitration board as he refused payment. After hearing both sides, the BBB found in our favor. This is our written response with photographic evidence: We began working on this clients’ home on Monday, May 9, 2011. We completed his home on Thursday, May 12, 2011. He signed a completion noting satisfactory completion of the work and even “tipped” the crew $50 for their efforts. I’ve attached a copy of the signed document (#1). Normally, our crew collects the balance upon completion. The client informed the crew that he wished to pay credit card. He did not express any concerns or dissatisfaction with the crew. He contacted me, Jim Williams, on May 12th. On that phone call, he expressed concern regarding several issues. I assured him that we would resolve any issues he may have. These are the issues of note: bent flashing, a damaged lilac bush, and overall what he felt was not quality work. I was confused by his behavior because I had just been contacted by the crew earlier with regards to their being finished. We set an appointment for the area supervisor, David Dgebuadze, to visit with him on Fri. at 5pm. I contacted David to make him aware of the situation. He was in the area and immediately drove to the home. The client was not home. David surveyed the job and noted the bush (#2pic) and flashing which had been bent. In communicating with the crew, David had learned that we had to change the siding just beneath the flashing. It had to be bent to remove the board and was returned to its original position when the board was replaced . Our crew supervisor, David Dgebuadze, left a message for the client on Thurs., May 12th, while at the client’s home and again a few hours later while in the office. His message informed the client that he had been to his home, was unable to meet on Fri. due to a previous appt. and requested the client to contact him so they could arrange a mutual time. I received a call back Mon. evening, May 16th. He was upset because we had missed our appointment. I asked him why he did not return any of David’s calls. He initially claimed David never called. I assured him that I witnessed his call from the office in which his message was verbatim, “Hi, this is David with Rhino Shield. Please give me a call at 513.432.6320.” The client then claimed to not understand that he was to call. An appointment was set for Thurs., May 19th. David visited with the client and these were the items reviewed: Flashing was repaired to clients satisfaction (pic #3), broken bush stem was reviewed, 4 drops of paint(one on roof, 3 on sidewalk) cleaned and removed, one section of grass(#4) clipped due to paint on grass blades, miscellaneous touchups and cleanups(#5). I questioned David on why he didn’t notice these items when he had been there previously. He said the paint drops were too small to photograph, all smaller than a pencil eraser but larger than a pinpoint. The touchups were not “missed areas”, the client just wanted more product than normal on window sills and frames to make the appearance smoother (#6). Upon David completing these items, the client assured David he would pay the balance as he stated he would when he signed the completion certificate on May 12th. May 24, after no return phone calls from him regarding payment, the client called and said his window was leaking. He demanded $1000 to hire someone to fix it because he felt we had damaged it. Since our product waterproofs the siding and it was a non-opening window, I asked to send David to look at it. He refused and was insistent on monetary compensation. I explained that we simply painted his house and changed one board. We did not do anything to alter the window and unless we could inspect the window, we would not be responsible for it. An appointment was set for May 27th. David inspected the exterior (#7) and the interior (#8). The window had no water marks on any of the frame, interior or exterior. the client had scraped and sanded the interior wood trim piece against the glass (#8). The exterior wood change and adjusted flashing that we performed was 3 feet above this window. It is physically impossible for water to run three feet down the siding and then through a window frame to the interior wood trim piece without leaving any evidence of its path. Water marks would be either at the top or bottom of the interior window frame if there was any type of leak. David attempted to explain this to the client. He became irate. David offered to run a water house outside as a test. The client demanded that he leave. The inside “stop”, as it is commonly called, often will become weathered from moisture (condensation) forming on the interior glass pane in the winter. Over a period of years, this wooden trim piece will require maintenance, repainting or restaining. The picture clearly is an example of such, combined by the fact that the client choose to scrape and sand the area prior to our inspection. If it had been a leak the damage would have been obvious. There was no water stains anywhere. Now we have been presented with a soffit grate issue. We are happy to come out and inspect the grates. The client has grates that are vented towards the walls of his home. Screened vents require masking, vented grates do not. They do not because the vents angle towards the walls of the home. Our product is a sprayed on application from outside of the trim, therefore the grates angle away from the spray, making it virtually impossible for the vents to be affected. This is a common question from our customers before the work has begun and they all understand once they see the actual process. Once again, we would welcome the opportunity to inspect and remedy the issue. In the pictures I have provided, all of the landscaping is quite visible. There is no visible evidence of any damage outside of a broken stem on a lilac bush. We regret this broken stem. We reviewed the situation with the client on David’s visit and thought we had resolved this issue. There is no other damage to his landscaping. A picture of the front of the home from the crew when completed (#9), the picture of the bush (#2), and the interior window picture (#8) all show untrampled, unpainted landscaping. David’s photo of the grass that was removed is the only “painted” landscaping. In summary, we have expediently attempted to resolve all issues brought to our attention and will continue to do so for any valid warranty claims. I am also including a copy of the agreement(#10) for review. It clearly notes any additional charges for wood change. The crew billed the client approximately $100 for the wood change just above the flashing viewed in picture #3 and #7. We wish to collect the balance of $6346 as we have two signed completion forms from him noting that the work has been completed.