In June 2006, (Member name removed) called MBR for a foundation inspection.Upon arriving for the initial estimate, a representative from MBR, professionally evaluated and inspected the home for foundation problems. As suspected, foundation problems did exist and (Member name removed) was proposed an agreement for repair on her Pier & Beam foundation for 12 Exterior Concrete Pressed Piers as well as to reset & reshim the understructure. In the initial engineering report, the engineer found that this home did not have a complete gutter and down spout system and noted that it was situated in an area that sloped downward. He indicated that the heaval and movement of the home is the result of a long term accumulation of moisture beneath the foundation. It was also noted that the understructure ventilation does not meet the current building code requirements. Additional crawl space ventilation will help provide positive air flow in the crawl space. (Member name removed) contacted MBR again on December 6th, 2006, indicating that the cracks were reappearing. In the engineering report you will find that since the home is situated in an area of active soils, which can allow the foundation to heave when soils become wet and swell and settle when the surface soils dry and shrink. It was anticipated from this report that interior cracks in the sheetrock would occur because of seasonal moisture changes and that periodic repair to this type of cracking would be required. MBR sent a crew out on December 15th, 2006 to adjust piers at the front right corner to alleviate the stress that the seasonal changes were presenting. (Member name removed) contacted MBR again in September 2007 in regards to the same types of problems occuring at the property as well as doors sticking. Since the conditions of the structure and soil moisture contact had changed, additional work was proposed to accommodate for settlement. Proposed work was declined by customer and an elective warranty adjustment was made, despite the recommendations. MBR sent a crew out again on October 8th, 2007 to adjust the same piers as in December 2006 and also as a kind gesture, reshimmed the understructure of this area (which was out of warranty at this time) to satisfy the customer’s request at no additional charge. Since 2007, no other contact was made in regards to issues with the foundation until April 2012 when Mr. Cofer contacted us with a Jonathan Cooper Engineering report that stated that adjustments needed to be made to the foundation. It was indicated that another foundation repair company (The Foundation Company- Luis Capote) worked on this house in March 2011 and adjusted the understructure. In the MBR General Conditions, it is states: “This warranty shall be null and void if:.. 2. An additional story is added to the structure, or changes of a similar scope are made, without the prior written approval of the Company (MBR), when such changes would affect loads on the foundation.” By having another company work on and adjust the foundation, the warranty should actually be null and void. This has not been done yet. We are attempting to work with (Member name removed) and (Member name removed) to resolve their current issues. This requires the adjustment of the existing piers (at this time, still under warranty) as well as additional understructure work, no longer covered by the warranty (expired on July 24th, 2007). In (Member name removed) complaint letter, she made reference to the fact that we do not have internal engineers on staff. MBR contracts a 3rd party engineer to provide and unbiased opinion of the integrity of structure. It would be a conflict of interest to have our own engineer on staff. With that being said, we ensure that the engineer contracted is a licensed Structural Engineer. This method is the most common and acceptable method utilized by most of the foundation repair companies in the DFW Metroplex. After receiving Jonathan A. Cooper’s engineering report, it was reviewed and discovered that Mr. Cooper is a registered State of Texas Environmental Engineer, not a structureal engineer. (Member name removed) states that Mr. Cooper informed her that our piering system is an inadequate system and that such system is prone to failure and settling. This statement is not found in Mr. Cooper’s report. There are several types of piering systems currently available on the market to repair a foundation. All of which have pros and cons depending on the application of the product. In our 29 years of business, we can confidently say that pressed pilings are a sufficient system to support the exterior load bearing concrete beams, provided that the structure is maintained. You will find under the MBR General Conditions that: “This warranty will be null and void if: 5. The foundation is undermined (i.e. soil slumping, eroding, plumbing leaks, creek beds, excavations, etc.).” Our solution was provided to (Member name removed) & (Member name removed) on May 1st, 2012. Proposed work includes the adjustment of existing MBR piers and the adjustment of the understructure as noted by Mr. Cooper’s engineering report. This would not hold a warranty because of the previous foundation adjustments completed by another company. An initial and final plumbing test would also be required to establish if there are currently any leaks at this property in addition to the recent rainfall at the time of inspection, lack of drainage and guttering and lack of ventilation in the crawl space. In Mr. Cooper’s report, it was stated that the crawlspace soils were damp and before adjustments can be made, the source of the ground water must be identified. As referenced above, stated by the structural engineer, if the soil moisture content is not maintained, the structure will continue to experience shifting. The original work completed in 2006 has been evaluated and approved by a licensed structural engineer and MBR has attempted to resolve the current issues at hand, which unfortunately comes at a cost to the customer. There is always a potential for more problems to develop outside of the original scope of work, and those problems are not considered warranty items. A large part of the problems stated in Mr. Cooper’s engineering report are new problems, not associated with the previous work completed. The customer will still need to try and determine what is causing the continual moisture that has been noted under the home and should take care of that moisture since it can be a contributing factor in the present movement. MBR has continued to offer a solution to the customer, which continues to be declined. MBR has continued to try and resolve issues by going back out to the customer and helping them. MBR has recommended further work be done to the foundation since there are further issues developing that are not covered by the customers warranty. MBR has quoted the work that the customers “environmental” engineer has recommended that is not within the warranty provided by MBR. MBR has offered to do that work at a reduced rate. Until the moisture under the home is addressed, this house will continue to have foundation problems. As suggested previously, the owner needs to correct the guttering and ventilation disparities and let the understructure dry out before this house can be efficiently repaired.