The customer is going from Web Site to Web Site to make a Complaint against R&L Stone and Marble: Also her story slightly changes each time. Below are my responses to the Better Business Bureau, who closed the case in our favor. 1st Respone: R&L Stone was contracted by Pro-Source to fabricate and install a small 9.39 Sq. Ft. Caesarstone Quartz Counter top with a 4" back splash and Under-mount Porcelain Sink. I personally came to template the job on October 16th after the cabinets had been installed. On October 24th 2013, I (the owner) personally came back to install the counter top, back splash and sink. After the completion of the Installation and clean up, I asked the customer to personally look over the project and approve the work. Which she did. There was no damage to the counter top or sink at that point and she approved the work that had been done and we left. The customer approval process is an integral part of our installation process. It is necessary to ensure that the job was completed to the satisfaction of the customer, that the state of the area was in acceptable condition, and that the appearance is as expected. It is, therefore, not possible for a customer to overlook an obvious flaw in the material at the time of installation. The Customer was presented with the installed product and was delighted with the results. On November 27th 2013, I was contacted by Pro-Source that there was a complaint with the counter top and the sink. I did not contact the customer until after the Christmas Rush to schedule a time to come out and look at her concerns. In the middle of January 2014, I met with the homeowner to look at her concerns. Immediately upon inspection of the top, I noticed a large scratch near the sink/faucet in the top and a large scratch in the sink, directly below and in front of the faucet. I explained to her that this damage was not in her top and sink when we installed and that she inspected the job before we left. I did express my concern that the plumber must have done this damage and that she should contact the plumber to discuss the damage. She also had a spot in her counter top that at a certain angle you could see. I could not explain this concern and suggested that I contact the warranty rep for this material and let him look at it. She agreed and I contacted him to discuss a time to come look at it. On January 29th 2014, I returned with the warranty rep to look at the spot that the customer pointed out. The Rep fixed the problem with ease and informed me of how to handle the scratch in the top. At this point, I agreed to take care of the scratch and replace the sink even though we were not responsible for the damage and explained that to the customer. When leaving the job site, the sales rep brought to my attention that the faucet was also scratched and that I should make note of it. It should also be noted that the warranty rep is not employed by us and has no motivation to support our position as he is objectively concerned by the state of the project and the appearance of his product that we have installed. On July 1st 2014, I sent two of my employees to replace the sink and fix the scratch in the counter top. I informed Pro-source that we replacing the sink and that we where not responsible for the plumbing (we will disconnect but not reconnect, an essential point noted in our contract) and that there needed to be a plumber on site to do the necessary work. There was no plumber on site that day and my employees called to let me know that the customer wanted them to do the plumbing. I told my employees to inform her that we would not be responsible for any leaks if they were to re-hook the drain line, and if she agreed, they could proceed. On August 6th 2014, The customer contacted me by email and said that she had a leak and that we had damaged her faucet. I explained to her that there was already damage to the faucet that had been noticed by the warranty rep back on January 29th. I told her that could not be held accountable for damage obviously caused by the plumber. Secondly, more than a month had gone by since the last visit, and we were just contacted about a leak and the "damage" to the faucet. R&L Stone and Marble has gone above and beyond to take care of the customer and her concerns. Firstly, we have spent far more in trips to this customer's house and numerous other expenses totaling hundreds of dollars, much more than the value of the job, and this was to appease a customer who approved our work initially and has now blamed us for a problem that was caused by others. Secondly, R&L does not receive payment from Pro-Source unless the job is completed and the customer has given them confirmation that the job is done, has been inspected, and is free from defects or damage. R&L was paid on November 1st 2013 in Full for this project. Lastly, regarding the faucet, we did not remove the faucet or disconnect the supply lines to replace the sink. The faucet was never touched during this process. 2nd Response: The customer has stated that the project was not near completion when we initially installed the counter top. However, the project was complete other than the plumbing, which needed to be finished after the top and sink had been installed. Even the mirror was hung on the wall when we installed the counter. Suggestion was made that the top had to be cleaned for any alleged defect to show so the customer was unable to see the flaw upon inspection. As professional installers, we obviously strive to leave the work area in better shape than we find it, especially when it is not an active construction area. We cleaned, not only the top, but also the entire area in which the work is done. This is done so the customer can see the area with no obstruction. This is just good business and is done on each and every job. To imply otherwise is not believable as any company that left a mess post-install, especially with the customer yet to approve, would be out of business rather quickly. But again, the customer was asked to view the work we had done and she approved that the work was free of any defects or poor craftsmanship. This was the case also with the replacement of the sink on July 1st. On both occasions more than a month had gone by before a complaint was heard. In the agreement signed with all customers, we have a 7 day policy for bringing concerns or complaints to our attention. This is not to punish the customer for any oversight of course but meant to protect our company from frivolous complaints, especially in regard to problems that arise from damage caused by other contractors. We never invoke this clause for any legitimate concerns, but any action taken to resolve complaints after this time frame is at the discretion of R&L Stone. As stated previously, the plumber had caused the damage to top, sink and faucet. The customer seems to think that the plumber is free from any fault and R&L is solely responsible instead of assigning blame where it belongs. Additionally, we clearly state in our contract is that we are not responsible for plumbing. It is the customer's responsibility to have any plumbing connected. Pro Source was contacted and instructed to contact the customer and have a plumber on site on July 1st. We can not be held accountable for the lack of communication between the customer and the company that we were contracted through. However, the customer claims that she was told that we would be responsible for re-attaching the plumbing. Our position was clear and unequivocal on that matter, that the plumber should take care of that, since the plumber was responsible for the initial damage. Our employees clearly communicated this on the July 1st date and repeated it succinctly so as not to be misunderstood. Our employees contacted me and made it known to me that she wanted the plumbing reconnected. They would not do this without permission from the customer, after the customer has been told that this was not standard practice and that we would not be held accountable for the plumbing. No action was taken until the customer granted permission with this caveat. Yet, more than a month passed since we were on site, and the customer is claiming that we are now responsible for plumbing services while still claiming that flawed material was installed. If the timeline is not suspicious enough, the entire position of this complaint seems to posit that our company routinely engages in business practices that would have us out of business within a month. Any objective reader of the following narrative would find it dubious at least and completely fabricated at worst. To review: the complaint is that we installed flawed material (with a flaw so obvious that it couldn't be missed) yet was somehow covered up by a work place so dirty that it hid the problem, and all of this was approved by the customer at the time of installation. And the work was not only approved but was completely paid for. After quite some time had passed, the flaw was noticed and we were brought in to fix the countertop, which we replaced completely. At this time, we then (again, allegedly) damaged the fixture - though it was noted before any work was performed by the stone representative. Then, to avoid paying for a plumber to reconnect the fixtures as is demanded by our contract, the customer approved of us reconnecting the plumbing. After inspecting the work yet again and after more than a month has passed, we are now responsible for contractor fees incurred by the customer, presumably for plumbing and presumably on the same faucet. Our Position is still the same. We have already spent hundreds of dollars and countless hours trying to make a customer happy through no fault of R&L. We must draw the line at some point and refuse to be bullied by the tiny fraction of customers who try to assign blame to contractors in an effort to recoup expenses for other home repairs.