ComplaintsforRAC Engineering

• Initial Complaint

  02/14/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Originally signed contract for them to design and oversee an addition to our home in July 2022 and paid half up front After this, we continually reached out and waited multiple weeks between each communication. When they would finally respond, their drawings did not include the features we asked for in the remodel, and our feedback was not considered in future drawings. We couldn't even get them to respond when we wanted to terminate the contract. Finally, in February 2023, the company reached out to collect further payment, claiming that they had fulfilled the terms of our contract. They threatened to place a mechanics lien on our home if we did not make full payment of the remainder of the invoice by the next business day, ensuring that we had no time to allow an attorney to overview the contract and demands. We eventually had to pay the remaining balance to avoid them placing a lien on our home.

  

  Business response

  02/28/2023

  On 29 July 2022 RAC Engineering did enter a contract with Andrew Parks for the design of an addition to the property he resides at and owned by his parents, specifically **** ******** ***** Hamburg NY Section 151.19 ***** * *** **. (See attached) 

  Delays were seen on this project by both parties. (Time analysis of emails presented by consumer shows this) 

  Changes were made as the consumer desired, to the best of RAC understanding of those changes. Opportunity for the consumer to review and comment on the design documents were afforded at key milestones in the project. 

  On 17 December 2022 a 90% complete set of documents were forwarded, via PDF file, to ****** ****** **** ****** *** **** ***** for review and comment. 

  No communication on either parties' part was initiated until 9 February 2023. This day's communication was initiated by RAC requesting response to the 17 December 2022 email. The response from the consumer was as follows: 

  "We have decided to not move forward with this project. The drawings weren't what we were hoping for and communication hasn't been great. Thank you so much for your help in attempting this project." 

  RAC responded that there was a balance due for work complete at which point Andrew Parks requested I (Robert Curtis) call him at my earliest convenience. 

  During that brief phone conversation, the Consumer (Andrew Parks) stated he was not going to pay the outstanding fee in total disregard to his contractual obligation as outlined in the TERMINATION clause of the contract. 

  Upon a WEB search it was discovered that Alan J Parks and Debra A Parks (property owners and parents of the resident Andrew Parks) had put the property on the market for sale. At this time RAC made the decision to pursue a mechanics lien on the property to recover monies owed. 

  This lien was filed at the Erie County Clerks office on 10 February 2023. 

  The consumer was notified, via email, that this lien was filed and RAC offered a grace period ending at 9 AM on 13 February 2023 to not fully execute the mechanics lien. The amount requested was ONLY for work performed by the production staff of RAC. Hours spent by the administrative staff and termination fees were not sought for this settlement. 

  COMMENTARY: It is my (Robert Curtis) belief that the consumer took the 90% complete documents and contacted a contractor to get an estimate on the project and the consumer decided that it would be wiser to sell and purchase a larger residence. This is based on discussion with the owner and resident prior to execution of the contract. 

  
  

  

  Business response

  03/09/2023

  see attached.  partially transcribed below for convivence but see original attached:

  Attached you will find my rebuttal to the second complaint made by the 
  consumer. 
  If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. 
  Very truly yours, 
  RAC Engineering, P.C.

  Robert A. Curtis, P.E. 
  President 
  

  Responses were NOT ignored, we have many projects on going, up to 500 projects per year, and respond in a timely manner to all active projects. Response back from this consumer were delayed, typically a one-week response time is expected, when this doesn't happen [in this case the response took approximately 2 months with multiple attempts to get a response], the project is moved to the back of backlog as to not delay those that are responding in a timely fashion. Our work is never rushed, and all clear direction is taken into account when preparing revisions and/or client changes. 
  The accusation that the drawings are "ugly" is a matter of a trained eye looking a construction drawings. It was discussed PRIOR to entering the contract that RAC is NOT an Architectural firm and does NOT produce pretty pictures that have no value in the construction process. This service was offered at an additional fee, as it would have required a subcontractor to perform, and the consumer declined. 
  This consumer "reach out to terminate the contract" was NOT congruent to the contract terms and constituted a BREACH OF SAID CONTRACT. 
  No threat was made, a simple statement that a lien would be filed if payment was not made, as this is the only vehicle allotted by New York State for a contractor to recover moneys owed for work completed when an individual attempts to defraud said contractor for work performed in good faith. This lien was filed BEFORE any attempt to make payment was seen. Indeed, the consumer refused payment several times and forced RAC to take this action. The lien was satisfied, and that filing was made within the state required limits for filing the satisfaction documents. 
  SUMMARY: The lien was filed after refusal to pay NOT after satisfaction of lien. The paperwork was filed for satisfaction to the County of Erie in a timely fashion within the time limits allowed by the County Clerk. The lien was NEVER full served and therefore never fully in effect. The consumers attorney if their due diligence was done properly would have known this. 
  If you would like, RAC can provide all DATED materials to support the timeline of 
  1. Refusal to pay 02/09/2023 
  2. Date of lien filing 02/10/2023 
  3. Date of Payment received 02/16/2023 
  4. Date of satisfaction of lien filing 02/24/2023 
  

  
  

  Customer response

  03/09/2023

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  He’s manufacturing a timeline. I can point to the emails we have already provided to show that the communication delay was on the part of RAC. The two week delay he is referring to was AFTER we called to state that we were not happy with the contract and wanted to cease our arrangement. We heard nothing back, assumed we were done, and then had him contact us claiming we were in breach of contract.

  Additionally, we met with our attorney on 3/4, and at this time the lien had still not been released. Why insist on lying if you aren’t in the wrong?
  
  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. ↩