Unfortunately, this is a long response, but necessary as we want to address every piece of what has been said: We work VERY VERY hard to leave every customer happy with the results of what they have contracted us to do. Do we always do that perfectly? Absolutely not. We can always do better. It is one reason why we ask for feedback over and over throughout our process. We work hard to communicate expectations and have very clear contract language. We make it easy for anyone that is concerned to access a member of our management team to find resolution for whatever is going on. We work with customers until we see it through, even if that means doing things are are far above and beyond what a customer has contracted us to do. We were prepared to do that very thing for this customer, and she was not interested in even talking about what that offer was. Upon the July posting of this review, we tried several times by phone to reach this customer to discuss her project. Our biggest concern beyond a customer not being satisfied, was that the comments are a complete disconnect from what type of work we did at the property. This was also the very 1st notification that she was unsatisfied. (We will address in depth below how many opportunities we give for customers to voice any possible concerns). Those calls were not returned. An email was sent to her as a follow-up, specifically asking her to call so that we can understand what she was upset about, to which she responded by email threatening to call an attorney. After another email back asking her to call, she did, and when attempting to walk through why she was upset compared to the work we were actually contracted to do, she stated "I don't want to talk about this" and hung up. It was clear from comments made that the only resolution being sought was an opportunity to try and hurt the company publicly. Instead of trying to find resolution she would feel good about, her goal was, quote, "writing a worse review so everyone would know what kind of work we do" before hanging up on the conversation. Our calls at the office are recorded. As promised, the review was then revised on 10/4 following the cut-short conversation with us. We will happily address what kind of work we do, as well as, work we do not do: The customer contracted us in January 2015 (not 2014 as the original review stated). The contract is very straightforward and includes pictures and diagrams about what would be done: 3 smartjacks accounting for half of her project total, Mold Fogging, 9 floor joists to be sistered, 10 cross beam supports, and 2 fascia boards being replaced. The above list is inconsistent with version 1 of this review in which it was stated that we replaced 3-4 floor joists and charged her $5000 for that. The list of items we were contracted to do for this customer were to address current joist issues, and prevent any further settlement in the 3 areas that SmartJacks were used. This is a structural repair, and a structural repair only. While we are a company that does waterproofing as well, this customer did not contract us to remedy the CAUSE of her floor joists rotting and foundation settling, which is water incursion. She contracted us to repair what, at that time, the effects of the water were. There is a very big distinction here. Even the original phone call to our office on 1/5/15 clearly talks about wanting to address rotten floor joists, not waterproofing her home against further water incursion. Version 2 of the complaint talks about how 30-40 floor joists are now rotted and mold has returned. By phone, the customer contended that a piece of fascia board wasn't replaced, and that the piece of fascia board would have waterproofed her home, thereby not allowing additional joists to rot. As stated earlier, waterproofing the property was never discussed, and replacing a sheet of fascia board would never have the result of waterproofing a home, nor was it communicated that it would. This is an incorrect assumption the customer is making that that piece of board would waterproof her home. One can reference the waterproofing section of our website to lean about the waterproofing process. Our process during any project we do: When an inspector comes to look at a problem, the concerns are discussed at length about what a customer does and does not want to address. We cannot push a waterproofing system on a customer if that customer does not want to address the cause of the water issue. When a contract is drawn up during that inspection, it details exactly what will occur. It includes pictures of what we will do (in this case shows joist sistering and not replacement along with the other items that were included). After the inspector leaves, we immediately ask the customer for their feedback by email on the inspection to make sure their concerns were heard and addressed. When the project begins, the crew leader goes back through the contract with the customer to make sure everyone is on the same page. Before leaving, the crew leader again walks through what was done with the customer. As soon as the project is over, the customer gets and email asking for feedback. They also get a postcard in the mail asking for feedback. Feedback on how the steps of our process is going is incredibly important to our company. Additionally, we recommend annual service appointments to make sure a home retains what was restored. We come out to a property to assess the work we have done, and in the case of SmartJacks, would have assessed whether they needed to be adjusted to prevent further settlement in those specific areas only. These service calls would have also served as a great opportunity to discuss ongoing water incursion problems. In all of the steps outlined above, no feedback was given to us, written or verbal, indicating there was any doubt in the customer's mind as to what work was done. No survey responses, no emails, no calls. Additionally, all service appointments, which we recommended in August 2015 and again in August 2016 were declined. Instead, more than a year and a half after work was completed, a review appears here that indicates we didn't do what we were contracted to do. It is important to address 2 additional things in this complaint: -building an overhang. This customer did not get a quote for building an overhang for a simple reason. We don't do this work. We do not represent that we can, and we will never tell a customer we will do something outside our scope of expertise. This was addressed in the original phone call to the company while setting an original inspection appointment on 1/5/15. - "Not long after the work was done, and adjacent area of the home began to settle" as written in version 2 of this complaint. This customer contracted us to address only a portion of the settlement of her home. Addressing the left side of a home, as an example, in no way prevents the right side, front side, or back side of the home from experiencing settlement issues. When talking with customers during an initial settlement inspection, we ask them to define if they want us to fix what is currently settling, or both fix and protect the entire home from future settlement from occurring. The customer had us fix the one area of concern, which is her right to do so. In no way does that mean that we did not do the work we were contracted to do, or that fixing one area would somehow prevent settlement in another area. In the attempts to reach out to this customer we wanted to: - understand why both versions of the complaint include us not giving a quote for something we absolutely do not do (building or repairing an overhang) - why the complaint (said and now revised) we replaced 3-4 joists only as the scope of work when the half the cost was for structural repairs not factored in to the calculation of what she believes she paid for materials and labor (labor is never itemized on our contract, and therefore a complete assumption on our costs of doing business on her part). -understand why version 2 of the complaint is about how we did not prevent further water from coming into the crawlspace and affecting her joists, when that is in no way what we were contracted to do. - With no contractual obligation to do so: what steps can we take at this point, coming up on 2 years after the fact, to address her concerns despite the fact we did exactly what we were contracted to do. Ultimately, the customer wasn't interested in talking this through. We stand behind the work we did, more than a year and a half ago. We stand behind the purpose of the work we did. We stand behind not representing that we will build something outside our area of expertise. We stand behind having clear contractual language. We stand behind giving customers numerous opportunities in our process. We trust, in return, that customers will come to us with any concerns so that we can make it right for them. If that had happened originally, we would have been happy to walk through the scope of work again with the customer to remind her that she contracted us for structural repairs and not waterproofing repairs. This customer is unhappy with us about work we were never contracted to do (waterproofing), and work we would never enter in to a contract for (building an overhang).