ComplaintsforBECA Residential Construction, LLC

• Initial Complaint

  11/14/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I hired Beca construction, *************************, to remodel the front of my house. It was the worst mistake I have ever made in my life. No amount of heartache should come with things done wrong to the extent that this happened. He installed a $15,000 fire rock front porch incorrectly and refused to fix it. He applied it over dozens of ***** nails, and the rust was seeping through the joints horrible within a month. He also used the wrong kind of grout which caused moisture to get in our crawlspace. He also never sealed the firerock, an expensive last step, so it got stained badly.Had to pay someone $10,000 to completely remove the fire rock and install it correctly. The firerock rep helped me with all of this. I also paid Beca to put on a new roof and brand new beautiful round gutters. The gutters he installed were sloped not away from my house, but right towards my front door, which caused the gutters to be full for a year with rain water, he also did not make sure there was flashing, so the water from the full gutters dripped down into my sheet rock because of no flashing until the paint started peeling off the walls in our dining room. We just got done spending another $15,000 on mold remediation and hotel rooms, had to move out because of the black mold, from his faulty gutter installation. Still need to hire someone to re-Sheetrock. Hired a gutter guy to re install gutters. My husband and I also are being treated for health issues because of the black mold. Horrible headaches and GI issues. Its very scary stuff. Literally between the utter Financial loss, that continues to grow (the ***** NEE hardwood floors buckled because of the moisture and mold, a solid year of stress and health issues, and he refuses to help us. What a devastating, and I mean devastating, choice it was to hire him.

  Business response

  11/29/2022

  
  

  In reference to the many complaints addressed to my company, I would like to submit our response that will contradict the complaints against us for work provided.

  
  

  The customer claims we incorrectly installed a FireRock patio at her house and that we used incorrect material. However we used the Oyster FireRick as specified. It was installed over an existing concrete slab with a mixture of thinset (for increased adhesion) and masonry cement per standard application process. The grout that was used was Citadel Type S masonry cement (invoice is attached) These are the proper materials for installation. Further, the customer claims that we did not use the correct material, though she states in an email dated June 17, 2021  I gave you specifically what materials (firerock) and what color grout to use, after I picked them out . 

  
  

  The customer claims that my company did not seal the porch, thus causing stains and the need for it to be replaced. However, we cleaned the porch twice prior to offering to seal it. You will see in the enclosed screen shot of a text with my cleaner, that the customer was happy with our first cleaning and asked me to schedule a second clean, that he was willing to pay for, as well. In reference to her complaint that my company did not seal the stone, please see the attached email from Oct 6 at 9:40 am in which I provided a link for the recommended sealant and offered to seal the porch. However, in her response at 10:33 she said hey, I'm just going to let my husband handle this :), thus removing this work from our scope.

  
  

  Lastly, regarding the porch, the customer accuses us of faulty porch work that created moisture problems in the crawl space. The customer also claims that experts told her that the whole porch needed to be replaced. However, these reports were never offered to us for review and we were never asked to replace the porch. To my knowledge, we have never been notified in any way of these concerns. I am not aware that the porch was rebuilt, however, if she actually did have the porch replaced, the proper protocol would have been to notify us and make a report of any findings that would point to faulty work on our behalf so that we could have had opportunity to address. Currently, if the porch was replaced, there is no longer any way to verify our original work as being the cause of any moisture.

  
  

  
  

  An additional complaint was on the staining of the step treads. We had much conversation about this and she accused us of using faulty material. I explained to her the lathe used for stucco is only available as galvanized and the nails used are galvanized roofing nails. I did acknowledge there is always potential for manufacturer failure, and therefor a nail could have possibly rusted. She states in her complaint that we did not use plastic over the lathe as was recommended by her expert. Her expert is incorrect in saying that the absence of the plastic is a mistake, as plastic over the lathe is not to be used per ASTM standards, rather, the purpose of the lathe is for the adhesion of the stucco.

  
  

  I have attached several emails including our dialogue concerning the staining. After the staining occurred on the stucco, we had a site visit including the architect to discuss a new solution for the step design. Reference email chain dated Oct 6 -7, 2021 where the customers, the architect, and I agreed on a site visit to review the customers complaint.

  The result was that she agrees that the stucco was not the problem, nor did she want to pay for a new porch surface design submitted by the architect to allow for longer porch overhand in order to recess stone risers. She ultimately instructed us not to change the stucco but rather to add FireRock over the step risers instead. Though this material was not called for on the plans or in the contract, we agreed to do it anyway at no additional charge in effort to remedy the staining. I have attached photos of this work. You will see in the text that she did not like our solutions, so we had to tear the stones off and go back to stucco. We did all of this at no additional charge to the owners.

  
  

  The customer goes on to accuse us of faulty gutter work which resulted in a water leak into the house. Upon receipt of her initial email, which was received approximately 7 months after the 1 year warranty expired, I went anyway to investigate her claims which were that the gutters were not flashed and that they leaned back towards the house causing water to pour back into the house. After my site visit, I sent her a response with our findings including the pictures attached showing proper flashing and proper slope. Her claims on the gutter work are simply false, as you will see.  One picture shows gutters installed on top of proper drip edge flashing. Second picture clearly shows the front of the gutters being lower than the back which makes it impossible for water to pour behind the facia and into the soffit and then into the house, which was her claim.

  
  

  In the emails that are attached (email response to gutters with pictures 10/7/22.pdf and email second response citing possible caulk issue.pdf) you will read that I explained all of this very clearly and mentioned that she should clean her gutters. I also offered to come alongside her and work to repair anything that our company did wrong, but I needed an actual report from a third party company stating findings for cause of the leak. This documentation was not provided to us, rather, she restated her claim of our fault in another email, saying that because we worked on the front of the house, it must be our fault. In my response to that second accusation, you will read that I restated the gutter installation and offered again to repair anything that is our fault, but reiterated I needed a third party recommendation as the experts on the gutters had provided entirely false information. We have still not received any such report. 

  
  

  In this second response I also mentioned to her that I had noted on my site visit that there was no caulk on top of a bracket penetrating the siding directly above the area of the leak. On my second visit I noted that someone had caulked that area between my first investigation and my second. I infer from this that someone else also saw this potential point of water entry and repaired it appropriately. It is important to note that the exterior painting and caulking was not in our scope of work. The customer received a credit of $3,000 to remove all painting from BECAs scope of work. (Invoice showing this credit is attached) Therefore, if this area was in fact the cause of the leak, that would be to the responsibility of the painting contractor, including any issues related to mold or health. However, as all repair was done outside of our input, and no investigation was performed prior (that we are aware of), The cause of the leak is inconclusive, and can no longer be determined. It is assumed that the caulk void is certainly likely, but undeterminable at this point. The before and after pictures of the brackets with and without caulk are attached.

  
  

  As you will see, our offer to work with the owner to make repairs was made on two occasions concerning the water leak, but no investigation, other than that which we performed as stated above and shown in the pictures, has been provided. Further as noted above, our offer to seal the patio, replace the stucco, and even rebuild the steps at no cost to owner shows that we have not been neglectful at all, but rather have gone the extra mile, even outside of our warranty period in attempt to satisfy the owner and in effort to stand behind our work. 

  
  

  Upon your review of our response, BECA Residential Construction, LLC requests that all complaints associated herein be removed from our record. Thank you.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩