EASTERN SHORE FLOOR COVERING & DESIGN

(Week #1) Without prior notification to the Owners, Mr. Hicks delayed the start of work until the 12th Sept.  When contacted, Mr. Hicks informed the Owners that the delay was due to his only installer being behind on another job.  Mr. Hick?s explained that he was unable to assist with the installation because he was temorarily working out of state as an insurance adjsuter.  Mr. Hicks did not return until Week 4 of this project.  During his absence, no supervision or oversight was provided.

(Week #2) On Monday, 12 Sept, a single employee began the demolition work.  At this time, this young and inexperienced installer was the sole employee of Eastern Shore Floor Covering and Design.  The installer would arrive on site mid-morning and would routinely work only 3 to 4 hours per days, making very limited progress.  A variety of creative excuses were offered for the need for early departures which typically involved the lack of tools and/or materials or personal injury.  During this project, the installer seldom worked five consecutive days and on occasions, would not show up for several days at a time.  The two (2) days alloted for demolition stretched to over two weeks.  To expedite the completion of this work, the Owners chose to remove the linoleum from the kitchen and laundry room and clear away the demolition debris themselves. 

There were several demolition activities which proved to be beyond the installer?s limited abilities and were completely botched.   To correct these problems the installer would rely on long telephone consultations with Mr. Hicks, who was still out of state.  Mr. Hicks would  ?talk? the installer through the repair but the resulting quality was questionable.  During the bathroom demolition, the installer admited to the Owners that he did not know how to remove the existing fiberglass bathtubs.   Rather than wait for assistance he chose to make multiply cuts the with a high speed saw, filling the entire house with a heavy coating of fiberglass dust.  (No attempt was ever made to clean the fiberglass dust from the walls, ceilings or cabinets.) While removing a bathtub, the installer damaged one of the shower fixtures, causing a sever water leak which could only be controled by shutting off the water supply to the entire property.   This shower fixture had to be replaced at the owner?s expense.  Due to Mr. Hicks inability to effectively execute this portion of the work in a timely manner, the Owners elected to have the bath tubs and their tile enlosures installed by another contractor. 

"Housekeeping? was a continual problem with little effort put into the care and cleaning of the work area, household or yard.  Tools, materials and construction debris  would be allowed to accumulate to extreme levels, impacting the general safety of persons in and around the house.  It was generally left to the Owners to clean up the messes, collect the scattered tools and secure the general area.  

When the Owners identified quality issues (i.e. uneven or misaligned floor tiles, mismatched grout lines, etc...), the installer would acknowledge the comments but would do nothing to correct the actual problem or take steps to insure the error was not repeated.  Despite the Owners? reports of poor planning, low productivity and sub-standard quality, Mr. Hicks made few visits to the jobsite, did little actual work at the site and took no corrective action. 

After the first appointment in his showroom, the Owners found that Mr. Hick?s place of business was generally closed during normal business hours.  When attempting to call Mr. Hicks at his place of business, the Owners was routinely greeted by an answering machine.  These calls were never returned and the issues relayed in their messages were rarely acknowledged.  Only by obtaining Mr. Hicks? personal cell phone number was the Owners able to contact him on a semi-regular basis.   When Mr. Hicks was contacted, he would be unresponsive to the Owners? concerns, providing excuses for and defending his employee without consideration to the Owners? dissatisfaction or inconvenience.

After eight (8) weeks of minimal progress, a second installer was hired by Mr. Hicks to complete the job.  This individual told the Owners that he was typically employed by another General Contractor and was only working with Mr. Hicks on a temporary basis.   This second individual, worked a minimum of 8 hours per day and (with limited assistance from the original installer) completed the remaining ~65% of the work in six (6) days .  After the installation was completed, the installer(s) left without cleaning the floor, house or yard.  Outstanding items included  the re-hang of bathroom, bedroom and closet doors, properly installing one toilet (leaking around the base) , the removal of construction debris and the collection of various tools.

Several days passed before Mr. Hicks could be reached, at which time he indicated that he felt that he had fulfilled his full scope of supply, requested immediate payment and stated that the Owners? expectations were ?unrealistic?.  After discussions, Mr. Hicks agreed to return the next week (Week #9) and address the many remaining deficiencies.  This minimal effort took the entire week and was a wasted effort .  Several doors were hung in the wrong frames.  The floors were sweep and damp mopped but no effort was made to remove the excessive amounts of grout or grout residue (haze) from the floor tiles.   Rather than re-seating the toilet's seal, the leaky toilet was addressed by installing sealant around the exterior base.  It should be noted that the employee(s) doing this work were so ill prepared for these cleaning activities that they searched out the Owners household cleaning supplies (brooms, dustpans, mops and vacuum cleaner) which were used indiscriminately with minimal effect.   The majority of the cleaning effort and corrective work had to be completed by the Owners at their expense. 

At the end of week nine (9) on Sunday, November 5th , Mr. Hicks was presented with a formal short-list of items which the Owners felt must be addressed prior to payment.  This detailed list included the specific locations of the same unacceptable tiles which were identified during the installation but ignored by the installer.  In addition, several new items were included which were only identified after the Owners? exposed them during the cleaning effort.  Several tiles were found to have a hollow sound which indicated to the Owners, the tiles were improperly installed.  Mr. Hicks disagreed with this assumption and stated that the hollow sound was cause by excessive leveling compound used to minimize the effects of low points in the slab.  (Two different flooring contractor have since been consulted and both disagree with Mr. Hick's assement.)

Interestedly enough, during the review of this list, Mr. Hicks stated that he had noticed many of these same defective items and proceeded to explain in detail how each could be quickly and easily corrected.  This indicated to this Owner that Mr. Hicks was well aware of this sub-standard work and was fully prepared to accept this low quality workmanship if not directly confronted by the customer.  In this Owners opinion, this indicates Mr. Hicks is unwilling to effectively enforce an acceptable standard of quality and is not prepared to act in the best interest of his customers.

At the conclusion of this meeting, Mr. Hicks provided a lengthy explanation of his current financial difficulties and his need for immediate payment in full.  The Owners agreed to pro

The store owner was rather unorganized. However, his price was cheaper than the "big box" company in town and I wanted to work with a local independent business. The job was not completed on the set date, because the owner did not check the order, to make sure the right size carpet had come in. I had taken a day off from work on the original installation date. We rescheduled, but when the installers arrived they did not expect to have to move furniture. My price included that, so the installers reluctantly did move it. They did a good job, but the owner never came by to check the work.