Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  10/26/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  7-14-23 Garrett Tree Service removed a Box Elder and poured Round Up Pro *** on the *****. 7-28-23 Another Box Elder died. ***** inspected and said only a chemical could've killed that tree in 2 weeks. He assumed responsibility and said they'd remove it for free (in Oct). *****-23 Texted ***** to schedule but he doesn't work there now. Referred to ****. *****-23 **** scheduled appt to assess on *****. He was a NO SHOW. I texted and he rescheduled for *****. He was a NO SHOW. He texted: Round up is just a salt and doesn't affect roots. He said "There's no basis for your claim." The directions for Roundup is on the product, and states it's NEVER to be used on trees that *** intertwine their roots. Round up contains Glyphosate (****%) which is a systemic herbicide that moves thru the phloem and accumulates IN THE ***** (per product instructions). It warns NOT TO APPLY ON STUMPS WHEN TREE ***** MAY BE GRAFTED TO ***** OF CUT *****. Box Elders have shallow, spreading roots that often INTERTWINE WITH ***** OF OTHER TREES. Tree roots can spread 2-3X the diameter of the crown. The dead trees crown is 17 feet. Twice that length would be the (minimum) spread of the roots, and would be 34 feet. The cut Box Elder was the same age/height as the dead one with similar crown, root spread, and intertwining tendencies. The trunks are 32 feet apart, so the root span of each would exceed 2 feet beyond the others' trunk!! Total overlap=100%. Pouring Round Up Pro *** on a ***** with intertwining roots to another tree is what KILLED MY TREE. Per the instructions, it should not have been used. **** should understand trees, root systems and root span if he's in the tree business. Given my interactions with **** since *****, I'd prefer to use a different tree service. I have no reason to trust ****, and every reason not to. I deserve compensation for the removal of a tree I wanted (that his company killed) and $550 would cover the cost of removal. This is the only acceptable resolution.

  Business response

  11/02/2023

  We have used Round-Up Pro occasionally for many years. Only when directly requested by the customer. We never apply the herbicide without consent. It is clearly stated in the quote and job that we were going to use an herbicide to treat the ***** of the tree we were paid to remove. Usually people request that we paint the *****, with a very small amount, to help slow the sucker growth after the tree has been removed. Often times painting the ***** does not kill the ***** but *** slow down the regrowth. I called a few other local arborists in town to see what they thought about the situation. I spoke with ***************** who has been an arborist in the region for 20+ years. He agreed with me that there is no way RoundUp is responsible killing the other tree. Round Up Pro is usually used to spray foliage and reduce photosynthesis. 

  On the container it says "Once in the soil, RoundUp breaks down over time into natural materials and will not move in the ground to affect nearby, untreated plants." This product is often used to spray fields a few days before planting new crops. This practice is usually safe for trees since glyphosate is not generally absorbed by plant roots or mature bark. However, if glyphosate contacts aboveground growth such as leaves or root suckers, it can impact the tree. Glyphosate *** also be absorbed through young bark or exposed roots.

  Demanding that I am responsible for this situation is a reach, at best. The customer asked that we use and herbicide on the *****. Not only that but RoundUp Pro is used widely and has to be sprayed on the living part of a plant. It is systemic. These things along with the fact, the tree that died is on the other side of the yard?! This stuff is used widely used, they sell it at *********** There is NO WAY that a small amount painted on a ***** killed another tree that far away. 

  With Respect,

  **** Garrett

  Customer response

  11/08/2023

   
  Complaint: 20786421
  
  I am rejecting this response because: The instructions on ProMax Warns to never use it on stumps with intertwining roots. **** ignores that fact and relies on an Arborists' opinion, to try to minimize ****** responsibility. An opinion carries no merit compared to ******'s written Warning. Failure to adhere to the instructions on the product is Negligent.

  I never asked for ProMax usage, I wasn't pre-informed, and never consented for its use. I received no quote informing me of ProMax usage because they didn't provide a written quote (it was verbal). **** lied, demonstrating a lack of credibility. An invoice was emailed after the tree removal stating they used it. Informing me after the fact was unethical, and deceptive business practice.

  I also never received/signed a waiver releasing them from property damage. There's no paperwork granting permission to be on my property, nor for tree removal (it wasn't provided). This is likely an infraction against ****** license and/or insurance obligation. Neglecting procedures shows reckless non-compliance.

  ****** crew assessed the dead tree, assumed responsibility, and offered to remove it at their expense. **** recanted the offer, sight unseen. This shows a lack of honor. He makes assumptions and uses them as the basis for excuses and rationalizations.

  **** insists that Box Elders can't affect each other, which demonstrates ignorance re: root spread/intertwining tendencies. Trees are his business, and his ignorance is unsettling.

  I provided facts from ProMax Warnings, and facts re: Box Elders. Instead of evaluating the facts, **** clings to unsubstantiated opinions, fabrications, and assumptions. He lacks integrity and is focused on dodging responsibility for his company's actions. They killed a healthy tree (that I wanted), and intend to stick me with the removal expense, due to their negligence. A rather disturbing Business Model.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *******************

  Business response

  11/21/2023

  You are assuring that the Box Elder died from the herbicide that was treated on a ***** 34' away. Somehow two trees located that far away have grafted roots? That is also impossible. How is a local Arborists opinion "unsubstantiated"? The only mistake Garret Tree Service made was having *****, who is not an arborist, slightly entertain the idea that these incidents could be related. You asked for an herbicide to be used on the *****. A tree on the other side of the yard dies and you blame us based on the idea that you think two 17' trees growing 34' away from each other have grafted roots?!  It's absurd. 

  Let us say just for the sake of being the devils advocate that those roots grew across the yard and somehow "grafted" together. Yes, horizontal roots of a tree can span the height of the tree. The ends of those roots would be tiny, similar to the ends of a tree branch. The solution would be diluted by the time it got to the end of the treated root system. Then it somehow jumps into the other root, also tiny, travels all the way to the other tree and kills the other tree? If you ask any certified arborist in town and have them explain how that could be possible I would be happy to listen. 

   

  Customer response

  11/23/2023

   
  Complaint: 20786421
  
  I am rejecting this response because:I have presented the facts and the truth. **** has no respect for either. Therefore I will pursue this matter legally.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *******************

  Customer response

  11/28/2023

  Better Business Bureau:

  I would like to reject the offer of Mediation for complaint ID ********. It is verifiable re: box elder roots intertwining, and verifiable re: root spread 2-3 times the length of the crown. The instructions on promax clearly warn against using it on trees with intertwining roots, and I was never informed that they would use promax. I was never given paperwork in advance re its use, and **** can't produce proof to support his lies. Mediation with a liar seems futile, so I think the only option I have is legal action because the court will require proof and accountability. I do appreciate the efforts from the BBB, and believe you did everything you could. Thank you for your time.

  Regards,

  *******************

*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. ↩