The following is a review of the contractor’s work (Texas Landscapes, LLC) from the homeowner’s perspective and is the homeowner’s opinion…
Type of project:
Basic, simple covered patio addition connected to the existing home located in Plano, Texas. Three columns, lower part of columns wrapped in stone, covered/shingled roof, paver flooring, six recessed lights, two ceiling fans, three power outlets.
Not part of the patio design: outdoor kitchen, gas lines, outdoor TV mounting/outlets, remote controls, planters, fire pit, fireplace, screens, shades, landscaping.
No need to install/relocate gas lines, no need to install plumbing.
The homeowner experienced the following…
Poor quality
GFCI protection not installed for any of the new outdoor patio power outlets. GFCI protection for outdoor electrical was clearly specified in the city construction code. Homeowner, friends, and family were subjected to risk of electrocution due to no GFCI protection installed on outdoor patio addition. Homeowner had to call to inform contractor that GFCI protection was not installed and to request GFCI protection. See further details in the review below.
Leaks in multiple locations in the patio addition’s roof and related risk of water damage to the home due to mold, mildew, or wood rot related to water penetrating the home. Flashing installed incorrectly on outside of home’s vertical siding (see photos and details below).
Stone work with visible damage or discoloration (cracks in capstone, deep gauges in what was supposed to be flat capstone surface, bricks discolored with construction mortar on face of bricks, bricks discolored with construction dust and left unfinished).
Uneven paver flooring (floor pavers at different heights, trip hazard).
Gaps between patio ceiling and brick wall of patio left uncaulked.
Construction mortar, dust, and debris discolored brick wall, homeowner asked contractor for workers to return to clean brick walls to restore original brick color (to perform quality work before project was considered complete).
Demolition debris, construction debris, and construction materials in yard and driveway. Demolition debris and constructions debris not removed from project site in a timely manner (multiple weeks of construction debris left in yard and in driveway created an eyesore of living at a construction site for a prolonged period of time – to project dragging on much longer than communicated by contractor).
Homeowner did not observe the project manager (the business owner) visit the work site to review company work product during the during the duration of the project, with one exception: homeowner observed project manager visit the project site one time (at end of project when homeowner withheld final payment due to poor quality issues – see more information below). Homeowner had to report poor quality issues to contractor for rework/repair because project manager was not reviewing company work product.
Contractor declared project work complete, asked for final payment, and accepted final payment when the following was outstanding:
1) GFCI protection on outdoor electrical outlets was not installed.
2) Leaks in multiple locations in the patio addition’s roof.
3) Two city code inspections not complete.
Contractor communicated to the homeowner that the final city code inspection was complete and this was not true. Two city code inspections were not yet complete. In the written contract, final payment was tied to the final city code inspection being complete and passing. Based on contractor’s untruthful statement, homeowner submitted final payment to contractor.
Homeowner placed a “stop payment” on the final payment after discovering the three (3) outstanding items (above). Homeowner communicated his displeasure with contractor for seeking and accepting final payment with the three items outstanding. Homeowner expressed his displeasure that homeowner had to discover all three outstanding items (rather than contractor), report the outstanding items to the contractor, and ask the contractor to rework/repair the outstanding items.
City inspector performing electrical inspection observed that GFCI protection had not been installed for outdoor patio power outlets and wrote up a failed electrical inspection. GFCI protection for outdoor electrical was clearly specified in the city construction code. The homeowner, friends, and family were subjected to risk of electrocution due to no GFCI protection installed on outdoor patio addition. The homeowner thanked the city code inspector for finding the dangerous safety hazard that did not comply with city construction code and immediately reported the issue to the contractor.
Work foreman and/or work crews did not review completed work with homeowner. Rather than review what they considered “completed work” with homeowner, they simply left the worksite when they thought that they had completed their deliverable (for example, demolition, site grading, stone work, framing, roofing, electrical, finish out, etc). Multiple times, the homeowner had to call the contractor company to have features re-worked due to poor quality.
Roof leaks in multiple places
On August 15 (four days after homeowner submitted final payment), homeowner discovered multiple leaks (seven locations) on the patio roof installed by the contractor.
Homeowner informed contractor of leaks on August 16 and informed contractor that homeowner could not risk water damage to the home due to mold, mildew or wood rot related to water penetrating the house.
Homeowner informed contractor that the newly installed roof flashing on the new porch addition appeared to be installed over the outside of the house siding (rather than up underneath the inside of the house siding). A photo (taken by homeowner) was attached to the email communication showing the flashing installed on the outside of the siding.
Homeowner communicated that standard construction methods (where a roof butts up to a vertical wall) is to place flashing under the home’s vertical siding (rather than incorrectly placing flashing outside the vertical siding).
Homeowner requested the contractor repair the roof leaks to prevent further damage to the home, to complete the project, and informed contractor that homeowner had placed a “stop payment” on homeowner’s final payment check (submitted to contractor five days earlier).
Contractor employee inspected roofing flashing and said he will install trim over the top of the flashing. Homeowner asked questions and insisted that trim on top of incorrectly installed flashing will not stop roof leaks. Homeowner insisted that contractor correctly install the flashing under the home’s vertical siding. Contractor employee said he needed to acquire materials to install flashing correctly and leaves site.
Contractor workers arrived at site to remove the incorrectly installed flashing on the roof addition (business owner admitted that the flashing was incorrectly installed outside of the vertical siding, rather than correctly installed under the vertical siding). Workers correctly installed new flashing under the vertical siding.
Homeowner tested roof for leaks, found less leaks, and informed contractor of the leaks (provided photos as evidence). Contractor came out, inspected roof and flashing, added caulk to flashing around the leak areas.
Homeowner re-tested for leaks and found one leak. Homeowner was tired of the project dragging on and informed contractor that homeowner would apply additional caulk to flashing around leak area to finish the project (and to speed up project completion). Homeowner climbed on roof, completed caulk repairs to roof flashing, water tested, and found no leaks in roof.
It took 9 days to repair the roof leaks (from time of discovery of roof leaks to final leak repair), thus further delaying the project completion.
Possible fraud
Homeowner added a contract term (prior to signing the contract) that final payment was tied to project completion and successful completion of city code inspection was required as an element of project completion. Contractor accepted the city code inspection contract term written in contract.
On August 10, contractor employee sent homeowner an email indicating that the project was complete, attached the final invoice to the email, and asked for a time to come by and to collect final payment. Homeowner responded to contractor’s email that asked for final payment – homeowner asked contractor when the final city inspection was scheduled (a passing final city code inspection was required prior to final payment). Contractor did not respond to homeowner’s email regarding city code inspection.
Contractor employee came to home on August 11 to collect final payment. Homeowner asked contractor employee if the project had passed final city inspection. Contractor employee replied that the project manager (business owner) had informed contractor employee that the project had passed final city inspection, and that the contractor could provide the homeowner with proof that the project had passed final city inspection. Homeowner replied and asked contractor to provide proof of final inspection. Contractor employee confirmed that contractor employee would provide proof of a passing final city code inspection via email. Homeowner handed final payment check to contract employee on August 11 (based on contractor informing homeowner that the project had passed final city inspection and that the contractor would provide proof via email that such final city inspection had completed prior to August 11).
As of August 14, contractor had still not provided homeowner proof of final city code inspection (as promised by contractor three days earlier).
On August 14 (three days after contractor had informed homeowner that the project had passed final city inspection), city code inspector arrived on site to perform a pending electrical inspection. City inspector observed that GFCI protection had not been installed for outdoor patio power outlets and wrote up a failed electrical inspection. GFCI protection for outdoor electrical was clearly specified in the city construction code. The homeowner, friends, and family were subjected to risk of electrocution due to no GFCI protection installed on outdoor patio addition. The homeowner thanked the city code inspector for finding the dangerous safety hazard that did not comply with city construction code.
Homeowner communicated with business owner (after the failed city inspection) that homeowner was not pleased with being lied to by contractor in order to receive final project payment. The homeowner communicated to the business owner that such behavior was unethical and inappropriate. Homeowner asked business owner to not cash the final payment check and to call the homeowner back. Homeowner reminded owner that the project was far behind schedule – at almost five months and still not completed. Homeowner informed business owner that homeowner has placed a stop payment on the final check pending successful completion of all city code inspections (final payment tied to successful final city inspection).
On August 15, contractor sent an electrician to project site and the electrician installed GFCI protection on outdoor patio power outlets. City inspector arrived on August 16 (after contractor electrician installed GFCI protection on patio power outlets) and the inspector passed the electrical inspection. On August 17, a final/last city code inspection (after passing the electrical inspection) passed. The city inspector performed the final building inspection on August 17.
On the date that the contractor informed the homeowner that all city inspections had passed (August 11), there were actually two outstanding (not yet completed) city inspections, one of which did not pass due to lack of GFCI protection issues (the electrical inspection). In addition, research conducted by the homeowner on the city permitting website indicated that that the contractor (the project manager/business owner) had placed a request with the city for the electrical inspection on August 11.
The contractor knew (on August 11) that the final city code inspection had not yet occurred, but the contractor did not inform inform the homeowner that the final inspection had not yet occurred. Instead, on August 11 the contractor requested final payment, the contractor informed the homeowner that final inspection had passed, and the contractor collected the final payment from homeowner (despite the fact that the homeowner specifically asked if the final city inspection was competed and had passed city code compliance, and that final payment depended on a passing final city inspection).
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of fraud is “perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right”. The contractor knew that final payment was tied to successful completion of city inspections (per the written contract, and per communications with the homeowner who asked for proof of final city inspection). Clearly, the contractor communicated to the homeowner on August 11 that the final city inspection had passed, when, in fact, the final city inspection had not yet happened. Based on the contractor’s untruthful statement, the homeowner released the final payment to the contractor on August 11.
The reader of this review can decide whether such an act by the contractor is fraudulent.
Contractor poor communication
More than a week would pass with no communication from any individual in the company and with no with no onsite progress on the project for more than a week. This happened multiple times. Project materials were onsite (stored on driveway or in back yard), but no work was being performed. Homeowner would initiate communication with contractor, ask what was causing the delay, and ask for resources to be applied to the behind-schedule project.
Work foreman and/or work crews did not review completed work with homeowner. Rather than review what they considered “completed work” with homeowner, they simply left the worksite when they thought that they had completed their deliverable (for example, demolition, site grading, stone work, framing, roofing, electrical, finish out, etc). Multiple times, the homeowner had to call the contractor company to have features re-worked due to poor quality (see poor quality section in this review).
Project manager (the business owner) did not communicate with the homeowner that the sales person was no longer the project manager. Homeowner contacted the business owner on May 26 when the sales person was not responding to homeowner’s issues regarding the project – business owner responded, “Sorry, I forgot to tell you that I am the project manager now. Once we go to city permitting, I am the project manager. You can contact me for project questions.” No one from the contractor had informed homeowner of this handoff of project management mid-project – homeowner had to experience lack of response from sales person, call business owner, and find out that the sales person was no longer the homeowner’s “go to” person for the project.
Homeowner did not observe the project manager (the business owner) visiting the work site during construction with one exception: Homeowner met project manager for the first time at end of project when homeowner withheld final payment pending satisfactory completion of project (pending contractor installing GFCI electrical protection and contractor repairing multiple leaks in the patio roof). The project manager visited the project site so that the homeowner could show the project manager the poor quality work product that required repair/rework/correction.
For a majority of the project’s timeframe, the homeowner initiated communications with the the contractor – homeowner asked contractor for information on project schedule, reasons for project delays, and informed contractor of project quality issues. The homeowner felt that contractor did not provide adequate information and was not proactive in communication with the homeowner. Communication is free (a quick call or text message costs nothing). The homeowner was not looking for a detailed schedule, or a detailed communication – just wanted a short text message or a brief phone call. But homeowner felt that the contractor was not communicative with homeowner. Homeowner felt as if homeowner was often “chasing up” the contractor to deal with project delays throughout the project, or that homeowner was having to initiate communication with contractor to document/highlight contractor’s poor quality work.
Since the contractor’s workers, foreman, and the project manager allowed the poor quality (see the poor quality items above), homeowner was compelled to document/highlight the poor quality items to contractor. Homeowner had to request that the poor quality items be repaired, had to request items to be installed correctly, and/or request to be installed in compliance with city code. As a result of the foreman and the project manager not performing their jobs appropriately, the homeowner took on some of the role for the foreman and the project manager (homeowner performed a part of the project manager’s job).
Early in the project, the homeowner asked the business owner how long the project would take to complete. The business owner replied, “It goes quick. Once we start work on the job site, only a couple of weeks.” The demolition and site prep began June 12 and the project completed August 24 – a total of 10.5 weeks (more than five times the two week estimate). Homeowner commented multiple times during the project that the project was far behind schedule – contractor employees would respond that they had lots of crews working in Frisco, Plano, Dallas, etc. The homeowner perceived that the contractor had significant resources, but that the contractor had chosen to apply those resources on other projects that were not the homeowner’s project.
On multiple occasions, the homeowner communicated (with the business owner) that the project was far behind schedule. The business owner confirmed multiple times that the project was behind schedule. Multiple times during the project, no work was done on site for a week (or longer). Thus, the project dragged on far beyond a reasonable time frame causing the homeowner to live in a construction zone with construction trash/debris that contractor work crews chose not to remove, construction materials stored on driveway and had for prolonged periods of time, resulting in the homeowner having to store new patio furniture in homeowner’s garage and having to park cars outside on the street for prolonged periods of time. Using the business owner’s timeframe, the project should have been complete on June 26, but the project actually completed on August 24. Homeowner signed the contract on March 17 and the project completed on August 24 – more than five months duration for the simple porch addition.
After the contract was signed, the homeowner asked for zero feature changes (change in scope of project) – the homeowner only requested features/deliverables as specified in the written contract, no extras, no changes that required a price change. Thus, homeowner was not the cause of project delays.
The homeowner responded quickly to each request from contractor – usually responding same day as the request, and always responding within 24 hours to requests for information from the contractor. Homeowner gave design feedback usually on the same day, but always within 24 hours of the contractor’s request. Thus, the homeowner was not a factor causing project delay.
Project delays and prolonged project time frames were due to poor contractor planning, contractor placing its significant resources on other projects, poor quality work product, and work crews having to return to the project site to correct/repair the poor quality work product after homeowner reported poor quality work to contractor.
Summary
Homeowner contracted for a basic, simple covered porch addition connected to the existing home and expected basics from the contractor: basic expectations such as adequate communication, adequate work product quality, city code compliance, a patio roof that did not leak, patio electrical power that did not expose home occupants and visitors to the risk of electrocution, and project completion in a reasonable time frame. The homeowner perceived that the contractor failed to deliver on some of the basics.
Based on the homeowner’s experience with the contractor, the homeowner would not recommend contractor, and would not refer the contractor to the homeowner’s friends and neighbors.
Mark Updates 