Not resolved

Our initial post must have ran-out-- even though I provided an update to Deckmasters returned to the job (a few days, one hour here and one hour there), but still hasn't finished the work. The quality is shotty at best and the Deckmasters solution to miscut materials is to 'putty' and fill in the gaps. The PA attorney general's office has been contacted and the original complaint against Deckmasters was recently reopened to try and get this project completed. We still don't have a chair on the deck, the lighting contractor has no idea when he'll be able to install our lighting and 14.2 percent of the total contract balance ($10,941) remains unpaid to Deckmasters because the job is unfinished. Thankfully we were able to re-coup that with help from our credit card company who offers consumer protection. The job started in June and this is now October and our deck project is still incomplete. What a mess. Below is the correspondence we sent to the BBB on 10-4-2012 to substantiate and re-open our original claim. In an email response from the manufacturer dated 9-6-2012, even Fiberon, agrees that the workmanship is sub-standard in the itemized response below.

Here's a recent response we sent to the BBB on the claims that Deckmasters has completed the job:

We have several comments in response to Mr. Nicholson's reply:

o In Paragraph #3 – while DeckMasters came to the jobsite, they did not complete all of the outstanding issues. There were many – nearly 30 "˜flags' that we placed to identify numerous issues were removed by the contractors, but corrective action was not taken on all of the items. We have gone through this same process to flag each occurrence only to have the flags removed by the jobsite team.

o In Paragraph #4 – Picture #11 never questioned the laminated 4x4 post, it depicted the off-center installation of the handrail to the post. However, it was Fiberon who additionally stated that it was not a recommended application/installation. It is unfortunate, that we were not aware that installation of this manner would negatively impact the Fiberon product warranty for the consumer.

o In Paragraph #5 – Deckmasters explains the engineering behind the laminated post; however, this installation is not in alignment with the manufacturer's installation requirements. Obviously, Deckmasters conceded to the need for some type of corrective action to be taken since photos document the void between the two improperly laminated 2x4 boards was "˜filled' when the August work was done.

o In Paragraph #9, Deckmasters indicates the work was completed on 08/27/2012. On two separate occasions, we made telephone calls to advise Mr. Nicholson that the work was not complete. According to our Verizon telephone records, the first call was made and a voicemail message was left on 09/10/2012 at 04:23 PM and the second call with another voicemail message was on 09/18/2012 04:25 PM. At this time, we have not received a response to either call.

o In Paragraph #12 – "˜The overall state of the deck' is referenced. We have documented in letters, punchlists, phone calls and photographs on numerous occasions the specific issues to be addressed. Each time, the all flags are removed and only some of the issues are resolved.

o In Paragraph #13 – We do agree that we are being "˜worn down'. If Deckmasters would put forth as much effort in resolving the specific issues we have taken the time to identify and commitment to building a quality product from the start as we have in logging and documenting, we would not be where we are today with this project.

o In Paragraph #14 - This is not a personal attack on Mr. Nicholson nor Deckmasters Technologies. We merely are asking to receive the work that was contracted with from Deckmasters. Deckmasters needs to deliver a quality product – the one that was promised in the contract and sold to us for $10,941. We recommend that both parties remain focused on the issues as they are documented.

o Regarding the final payment"”Below is the scenario of payments made to DeckMasters since inception of the contract on 04-14-2012.

1. Deposit of $1,641 was made by check at contract signing on 04-14-2012.

2. At the completion of "˜tear-down' on 06-22-2012, another $7,100 payment was made by check.

3. At the suggestion of the project manager (Mike Davin) with as he stated "˜only a few minor outstanding items left', Mr. Davin asked us to call in another payment on 06-29-2012 in the amount of $1,559 – which would have left a $500 balance due upon completion of the "˜touch-ups' and "˜the pet gate'. The pet gate was never delivered and installed at the jobsite.

Following a walk-through of the project, the list of unfinished business continued to grow. For our own protection, we contacted our credit card company with a two-page letter, photographs and the Deckmasters contract and requested to envoke the right to take back the $1,559 payment from Deckmasters until the issues were addressed and resolved. These matters have continued through the entire summer season and now into Fall. As the Deckmasters photos indicate, we do not have one piece of furniture on the deck and have not used the deck since tear- down of our original deck occurred on 6-22-2012.

In addition, we don't have a pet gate as included in the written contract. If the product is not installed as recommended by the manufacturer, how is the consumer protected? When the deck was sold to us, Mike Davin stated that Deckmasters "˜includes a limited, lifetime warranty' with their builds. If the Deckmasters takes this long to finish a quality product, what can a consumer expect when filling a claim with Deckmasters on their lifetime warranty?

The issues depicted below with explanation and photos fully justifies our reopening of BBB Claim 914522 which originally started in July 2012 with DeckMasters Technologies, Inc. This documentation removes any question regarding the validity of "˜old' vs. "˜new' photographs – and the pictures speak "˜a thousand words' to quality of workmanship we received from this contractor.

In an email with photos taken on 07/25/2012, an inquiry was sent to railing manufacturer, Fiberon, asking for feedback on these issues and installation practices. Below are the photo numbers (from 07/25/2012) along with comments from the Fiberon representative:

Good Morning, Linda.

Thank you for contacting us with your concerns for your Fiberon railing material. While we understand your desire to have a representative to view your material in person, we do not have representatives that do this type of thing. Also, we can tell from the pictures what the issues are and would like to address each one for you.

1. Picture (30): Looks like an issue with the saw. If the saw does not have enough "teeth" to make the cut neat and clean, it can "chatter" the material at the cut.

2. Picture (11): Rail is not centered on post either because the post isn't positioned correctly, or the rails was pushed too far over. Another issue is that the post sleeve is not installed on a 4x4 post as required, but has 2 – 2x4's inside of it. This is not a recommended application/installation.

3. Picture (29): The end of the rail is either not cut true and even, or your posts are not installed plumb and true.

4. Picture (4 ): Angle cut is not correct. It appears that the very outside of the cut (to the left most side of the rail) was cut too short. Either the saw jumped, or the mark/cut was not made correctly.

Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Tammy Sanders, Coordinator

Consumer & Technical Support


198 Random Drive

New London, NC 28127

704-463-7120 x.1240

Do You Have Something To Say ?
Write a review


Terms of Service
Post Comment

You May Also Like