Key Dates:- Jun 17 2008: Owner signed contract for tile installation in two bathrooms. Pays $825.30 to S&H Distributing.
- Jun 20: Installers put in tile, but didn't grout, didn't clean up, and left toilets in showers.
- Jun 26: Owner learned job wasn't done and calls S&H.
- Jun 27: Installers replaced toilets but did not grout.
- Jun 30: Owner learned job wasn't done and calls S&H.
- Jul 02: Installers return, supposedly with the "best" installer to finish the job properly, but the resulting job was done in a careless manner as shown in pictures below.
- Jul 03: Owner shares pictures with S&H.
- Jul 07: Installers return, clean, and things look good. But the owner's property manager reports the areas where mastic had previously shown have been caulked rather than grouted. Owner asks S&H to inquire about the materials used by the installers.
- Jul 11: Owner gets verification from handyman that indeed silicon caulking was used between the tiles instead of grout. Owner calls S&H. Installers hadn't provided full material info to S&H. From the handyman's report,
The tile guys are still messing with you. They used silicone caulk to coat the places where they let adhesive ooze up between the tiles. When you walk into the MBR, the white in about a square foot in front of the toilet glows white from the caulk. I guess it will work, but it looks weird, and I can't figure why they think you'd accept weird looking, brand new, no expenses held back, tile. - Jul 15: Spoke with John Stacy, owner of S&H. He recognized the problem, and he said he would look into how to make things right, then get back to me. He never called back.
- Jul 25: Owner received detailed photos showing that up close, the latest tile job still shows Mastik adhesive in some places and some tiles were damaged by the wire brushes used in attempts to remove the Mastik on Jul 07. See photos below.
- Jul 29: Owner calls back John Stacy to seek resolution. Left message with sales rep that owner believes a full refund is in order. S&H never called back.
- Jul 31: Owner calls back John Stacy of S&H. The call lasted roughly 30 minutes as the two parties tried to understand each others issues and tried to agree on what was said and done in the past. The property owner feels the currently installed floor is damaged and improperly done, and he feels the six weeks (and counting) of hassle related to this floor decrease the value he got from the transaction even if the floor had been completed properly. John Stacy's view is that some value has been received, and so the owner should pay for that, and anyway, the industry deals in discounts rather than refunds.
The two discussed options for resolution. John's preferred proposal is to give a 50% discount on the job, which John says should have been conveyed a couple weeks ago. The property owner feels that might have been okay with the knowledge he had two weeks ago, but since then he learned the job is done more poorly than first believed, and he feels like the lack of follow up from S&H after the Jul 15 and Jul 28 calls has increased the hassle-factor even more. Other options discussed including arbitration, the Better Business Bureau's complaint process, putting a discount on the carpet and the tile work from June instead of just on the tile, and removing the tile job entirely then replacing it properly. The outcome of the call was that John would get information on arbitration to the property owner, and they would both consider whether acceptable options may exist that hadn't been discussed. S&H did not provide information about arbitration nor make any contact with owner.
- Aug 6: Owner emails sales rep, having heard nothing from John Stacy, and asks for John's email address.
- Aug 13: Owner emails sales rep and again asks for John's email address. No info has been provided from S&H since the owner spoke with John on Jul 31.
- Aug 20: Owner telephones S&H and asks for John Stacy. He is transferred to John's number and leaves a message on voicemail that he would like to speak to make progress on this issue. Owner calls half an hour later to check whether John is expected to be in the office today and to leave a message with the person who answers the phone to ask that John call.
John Stacy calls back. Owner says that after both their prior calls, John said he would get back to the owner but never did. John however says that after each of their calls he had asked the saleman Matt to communicate John's response. Owner says he would like to have a call with both John and Matt to try to clarify this. Owner asks what John believes a reasonable payment would be if John's company were to repair their job next week, given all the difficulties experienced thus far. John says in such a case, full payment would be fair. "So the payment is the same whether a job ordered in mid June is completed in mid June or whether it takes half a dozen visits over two months to get it right?" John believes that is the case. During this call the owner proposed no solutions but just asked questions about what John thought was possible. John said the following options were possible:- S&H finishes the job and keeps the full payment
- S&H gives some reasonable refund and owner keeps the improper job
- The Better Business Bureau conducts binding arbitration
John said that he does not pay the installer when they return to fix a job because they are paid a flat rate per square foot. John doubts the installers really put caulk between tiles. John didn't have time to finish the discussion, so he said he would call the owner back the following day. Owner emails John a link to this page and says he looks forward to the following day's phone call.
- Aug 25: John Stacy did not call back as he said he would. Owner emails again asking John to confirm that the message was received.
- Aug 28: Owner again emails John Stacy to ask for a response. Owner invites John to come look at floor to see first hand that caulk was used.
- Aug 28: Owner contacts credit card company, provides this information, disputes charges from S&H.
- Oct 16: Credit card company informs owner that S&H asserted to them that the owner failed to avail himself of opportunities S&H offered to resolve problem and S&H threatens to put lien on property.
- Nov 3: Onwer sends credit card company copies of emails he had sent to John Stacy that Stacy had ignored. These emails indicated that S&H hadn't been sincere about moving toward a resolution.
- Dec 4: Credit card company tells owner S&H said it will discontinue the dispute.
- Jul 8 2009: John Stacy sends email threatening litigation for slander and theft. Asks that shdistributing.net be taken down and this web content be taken down. Owner responds that in exchange for the assurance that this matter will be considered behind us, he will gladly take down this content since its purpose had been to help reach resolution.
- Jul 10: John Stacy emails again to say that the owner should propose a resonable settlement or face a lawsuit. Owner responds that everyone has lost, and the best path foward is for all parties to move on.
Photos from Jul 25:
|
