ComplaintsforThe Grounds Guys of Pflugerville

• Initial Complaint

  12/08/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On Sept.15th 2023 I received an executed a proposal/contract with Ground Guys of Pflugerville for irrigation work, specifically to locate and replace a sprinkler valve and replace sprinkler heads, after a diagnosis a few weeks before. On Oct.4th a crew came out to start work, but demanded I pay the total in full of $800.94 or they were not going to do any work. This is already a breach of their contract that states 50% be paid upon acceptance of the contract (which was never asked of me), 25% at the beginning of the project, and remainder at completion. I begrudgingly wrote them a check in good faith. They fixed the heads, but spent all day digging on the side of my home trying to locate the valve. They determined the valve is under a very large stone patio "somewhere", but could not find exactly where. So the valve was NOT located, although they claim they DID locate it because they assumed it is somewhere under the large stone patio. And this is the same patio where two other valves were previously located EXACTLY by another company so we could know exactly which stones to lift and not have to rip out the entire patio looking for a valve that *** not even be there. They claim there's a unique situation that does not allow them to locate this valve. But again it was already done for TWO other valves under the same patio. They took my check straight to the bank and deposited it immediately. I asked if they could reimburse a small portion of what I paid because there was nothing accomplished - but they steadfastly declined and claimed they did "locate" the valve. Then I asked them to bid me a few alternate solutions to get the sprinkler station up and running, and after exchanging a few emails and calls they sent me an email on Nov. 14th, ************************************************************************************************************************ properties associated with my name. All I can say is "WOW". They literally took my money and "ran".

  Business response

  01/03/2024

  To Whom It May ****************************************** contacted our office via phone on 09/06/23 and arranged a consultation appointment on 09/15/23 regarding irrigation work. During the discussion, he indicated his ongoing efforts to secure coverage for repair costs through his warranty company, specifically for a couple of malfunctioning zones and a broken spray head. The consultation was conducted by ***************, one of the Owners, who assessed the irrigation system's condition. It was determined that repairs were necessary, including the identification and replacement of the non-operational zone 4 valve, whose current location and condition were unknown based on available information. ************** did not possess a schematic detailing the layout of his irrigation system, making it challenging to locate all components accurately. The proposed repairs involved replacing four dysfunctional spray heads and nozzles spread across zone 1 and zone 2. These faulty components were identified as the source of significant water loss,estimated at gallons per minute.

  The finalized estimate was forwarded to ************** for review.  ************** returned the signed and dated estimate indicating his approval for the proposed work,effectively establishing a binding contract. The agreed-upon work was then scheduled for completion on 10/03/23.  Prior to signing the estimate, Mr. **********;had a discussion with ***, during which he requested additional work to be included without documentation in the estimate, intending to conceal it from the insurance company. *** declined this request as it contradicts ethical standards and may border on fraudulent practices against the insurance company. 

  Our standard procedure for landscaping projects involves a payment schedule comprising a 50% deposit upon signing, 25%at the project's commencement, and the remaining balance upon completion.However, regarding irrigation repairs, our policy is to collect full payment on the scheduled work date before work commences. This protocol was clearly communicated to Mr. **********;by our Office Manager and is implemented at our discretion. 

  ************** diligently fulfilled the task of replacing the four damaged heads within the specified timeframe outlined in the contract. Subsequently, the remaining allocated time was dedicated to locating the malfunctioning valve slated for replacement with a new unit.  In the pursuit of identifying the valve's position, ************** employed a systematic approach, tracing the wiring back to its source beneath the concrete slab using a specialized valve finder tool. Regrettably, the detection process encountered an impediment when the wiring signal ceased upon contact with the concrete surface. This cessation indicated that the concrete's thickness hindered the valve finder's ability to accurately receive the wiring signals, rendering it unable to proceed further in detecting the valve's exact location through the thickness of the concrete.  Despite employing meticulous techniques such as wire tracing and employing the valve finder tool, all investigative efforts consistently pointed to the valve's position being situated either underneath or within the concrete slab.
  

  It was further inferred that the valve likely resided in close proximity to the neighboring valves positioned beneath the concrete slab. Common industry practice dictates avoiding the placement of concrete over irrigation piping and valves due to the potential ramifications in the future. This includes the risk of leaks that could jeopardize the integrity of the slab's foundation or cause damage to the wiring infrastructure. This circumstance appears to be a consequence of the actions taken by the contractor responsible for constructing the concrete slab, who, in this instance, inadvertently poured concrete over the irrigation system in the designated area, encompassing the nonfunctional valve within its enclosure.

  ************** conveyed this information comprehensively to **************. Following this, Mr. **********;initiated contact with our office, where multiple staff members engaged in extensive discussions with him via prolonged phone conversations and emails. Throughout these interactions, Mr. **********;was clearly informed that resolving the issue of accessing and replacing the nonfunctional valve underneath the concrete would necessitate a Change Order. 

  The proposed solution outlined involved the intricate process of breaking up and removing specific sections of the concrete slab. This action would facilitate access to the irrigation wiring concealed beneath the concrete, allowing for the location and replacement of the valve. However, this course of action entailed additional expenses and labor, encompassing the dismantling and subsequent reinstatement of the concrete slab.  As an alternative,an option was presented involving cutting the line leading to the valve beneath the slab and rerouting it. Nonetheless, this alternative, although viable, was conveyed to Mr. **********;as a pricier option compared to the initial proposed solution.
  ************** exhibited disinterest in pursuing our proposed resolution. Further, he persistently contested our assessments,continuously altering his narrative regarding the valve's location and past irrigation work performed by a different company. We find it puzzling that Mr. **********;did not approach the previous company responsible for the earlier irrigation work to ascertain the location of the remaining valve as he continued to profess strongly that they knew exactly where the valve was located.

  Instead, Mr. **********;requested our return without any additional charge to excavate ************* and tap into his neighbor's irrigation system. To proceed with this alternative solution, we explicitly informed him of our prerequisites: a written authorization form and verbal consent from the neighboring homeowner, granting permission for the proposed work. Furthermore, we made it clear to Mr. **********;that upon receipt of the aforementioned authorization, an additional estimate would be necessary to proceed with the modified course of action. Our Office Manager and ****, one of the owners, effectively communicated all these requirements to ***************

  **** issued a check to **************,covering the expense of the valve, amounting to $23.85.  Maintaining positive relationships with our clients is paramount, and despite our efforts to find a resolution, it became apparent that further mutual cooperation was challenging if not impossible. After thorough consideration and considering all factors of this relationship with **************, we made the difficult decision to cease all ongoing service requests related to Mr. **********;and to respectfully decline any potential future business inquiries from him or any properties associated with his name. It became evident that our collaboration may not be the most suitable fit for either party involved.
  

  We conveyed this decision to Mr. **********;in a transparent manner and expressed genuine gratitude for his business and hopefully his understanding of our position.  This communication signified the closure of this matter from our end.  The work outlined in the contract was completed.  All email communications can be attached if necessary.

  Thank you,

  *** and *****************, Owners
  Grounds Guys of Pflugerville & **********
  A **************************************** ************ Cell
  

  
  

  Customer response

  01/04/2024

  Complaint: 20974019
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  > ************** did not possess a schematic detailing the layout of his irrigation system, making it challenging to locate all components accurately.
  
  And I wonder how many Ground Guys customers have and this. This is irrelevant to the complaint.
  
  > Our standard procedure for landscaping projects involves a payment schedule comprising a 50% deposit upon signing, 25% at the project's commencement, and the remaining balance upon completion. However, regarding irrigation repairs, our policy is to collect full payment on the scheduled work date before work commences.
  
  Regardless of how Ground Guys wants to categorize different payment schedules for different types of projects, the contract that I signed was for the payment schedule of "50% deposit upon signing, 25% at the project's commencement, and the remaining balance upon completion", and is clearly spelled out in the contract attached to this complaint. So it was an unpleasant surprise when the technician informed me I needed to hand him over a ***************** before he would do any work. This after having to wait a month with a broken system. Thinking it through a little more - I think I now understand why Ground Guys would have a different payment schedule for irrigation repairs, especially when it comes to locating valves: Pay all up front for labor for locating valves. If valves cannot be located, add on an expensive "Change Order". If the customer is not happy the valve could not be located as expected and not happy about expensive change order, then Ground Guys already has your money for an unfinished job.
  
  > This protocol was clearly communicated to ************** by our Office Manager and is implemented at our discretion.
  
  Simply not true - but even if it was, again it is clearly not the terms contract that was signed by both partners - so Ground Guys violated their own contract.
  
  > Despite employing meticulous techniques such as wire tracing and employing the valve finder tool, all investigative efforts consistently pointed to the valve's position being situated either underneath or within the concrete slab.
  
  The size of the stone portion of the patio about 50 sq feet, so clearly the valve was not exactly located. The labor I paid for states that the valve was located. So effectively I paid for labor that effectively solved nothing.
  
  > Common industry practice dictates avoiding the placement of concrete over irrigation piping and valves due to the potential ramifications in the future. This includes the risk of leaks that could jeopardize the integrity of the slab's foundation or cause damage to the wiring infrastructure. This circumstance appears to be a consequence of the actions taken by the contractor responsible for constructing the concrete slab, who, in this instance, inadvertently poured concrete over the irrigation system in the designated area, encompassing the nonfunctional valve within its enclosure.
  
  After discussing further with my contractor, I have learned that the portion of the patio in question isn't even a concrete slab at all. It's simply flagstone with mortared joint on top of a few inches of road base on top of dirt, which you can clearly see from the two previously located valves (by another, one-person "company") under the same stone patio extension. So this is something new to add to my complaint - Ground Guys is blaming my contractor for pouring concrete over the valves as bad practice - but it's not concrete at all and Ground Guys, being the experts they are, should have recognized this. So, as was done previously for two DIFFERENT valves under the SAME patio, I paid for labor to locate a third valve and Ground Guys could not accomplish this task, which another lesser-staffed company did twice for two different valves,
  

  > The proposed solution outlined involved the intricate process of breaking up and removing specific sections of the concrete slab. This action would facilitate access to the irrigation wiring concealed beneath the concrete, allowing for the location and replacement of the valve. However, this course of action entailed additional expenses and labor, encompassing the dismantling and subsequent reinstatement of the concrete slab.  As an alternative, an option was presented involving cutting the line leading to the valve beneath the slab and rerouting it. Nonetheless, this alternative, although viable, was conveyed to ************** as a pricier option compared to the initial proposed solution. ************** exhibited disinterest in pursuing our proposed resolution.
  

  Well of course I'm going to "exhibit disinterest" when I pay $800 for labor to simply locate a valve exactly, just as had been done with two different valves (ones in attached photos) under the SAME stone patio but a one-man company for a tiny fraction of the cost.

  > continuously altering his narrative regarding the valve's location and past irrigation work performed by a different company. We find it puzzling that ************** did not approach the previous company responsible for the earlier irrigation work to ascertain the location of the remaining valve as he continued to profess strongly that they knew exactly where the valve was located.
  

  As I explained to Ground Guys numerous times, as per above, a previous company exactly located two DIFFERENT valves under the same STONE for a fraction of the labor cost. All I wanted was the valve located exactly so I could have the contractor who laid the stone dig up the valve without having to rip it all up. But that could not be done, again as was done by another company. So that is why I'm simply asking for at least a partial refund of that labor
  

  >  To proceed with this alternative solution, we explicitly informed him of our prerequisites: a written authorization form and verbal consent from the neighboring homeowner, granting permission for the proposed work.

  Regarding this particular solution I was provided no real guidance - no form, no information about what is actually needed here.. "verbal consent"? What does that even exactly look like? I still have these questions!
  

  > After thorough consideration and considering all factors of this relationship with **************, we made the difficult decision to cease all ongoing service requests related to ************** and to respectfully decline any potential future business inquiries from him or any properties associated with his name. It became evident that our collaboration may not be the most suitable fit for either party involved.
  

  And this decision was made even before presenting ANY of these solution on paper with associated costs. I never had a formal solution on paper to even reject!
  

  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. ↩