The Client From Hell Returns

Grainywood

Well, just like she warned on my way out the door like some catty old you know what, the client I forked over the $720 for the plumbing work is calling about a leak coming from her pedestal sink. Strange since she says the leak is in FRONT of the sink, not where the actual pipe is at the back.
Sounds like spilled water to me.

Given that my contract is explicit, I've told her that if she wants to push the issue, I can exercise the language of my contract and she can use the $720 I paid already as payment toward her calling in her own plumber to deal with the issue. I think the less I have contact with her property the better at this point because she is looking for a freebee. Oh did I mention she got a free floor by screwing another two contractors a few years ago?

This is the same client who thought because her sink wasn't originally installed up to code, that I should pay to tear out her drywall and have it reinstalled correctly. Apparently the sink was bolted to the drywall without a back board between the studs. Let's not mention how she wanted me to pay for a new toilet pipe in her floor because it was old and may not be compatible with the new flange, or how she got excited at the prospect of shopping for a new faucet at my expense. Luckily none of this happened. But this is a woman who doesn't know the concept of "scope of work" versus liability. My employee didn't damage anything; her house had pre existing conditions that precluded completing the project without some plumbing upgrades.

I should never have agreed to pay for any of her plumbing bill (well actually my wife did), for one because it wasn't within the scope of the work and two because my contract excludes concealed issues that require other trades, but mostly because once a customer thinks they can get away with something, there is no end in sight about what they want you to pay for.

Customers aren't always right, they have to be shown what's right sometimes.

__________________
"I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination."

joasis

Quoted:
The next thing I know the homeowner tells me it's my responsiblity that the toilet can't be reinstalled, that the pedestal sink faucets have too short of a line to reconnect, because I didn't warn her on the estimate. She demanded that we pay for the plumbing problem. Not only that but apparently the sink wasn't installed correctly when the house was built and now because the sink is off the wall she wanted me to pay to have it done correctly which meant the tearout of her drywall. Then the plumber guy says her pipe leading out of the floor for the toilet is old and needs to be replaced which she also wanted me to pay for. Can we say "freeloader?" and we're not talking poor people here. We're talking about one of the richest areas of town, an old house with sub code construction that is causing problems and she wants a flooring contractor to fix it for free. Should I fix her roof too?
[end quote]
Quoted
I should never have agreed to pay for any of her plumbing bill (well actually my wife did), for one because it wasn't within the scope of the work and two because my contract excludes concealed issues that require other trades, but mostly because once a customer thinks they can get away with something, there is no end in sight about what they want you to pay for. [end quote]

I don't know how I missed this one the first time around, but if there is ever an example of just say no, this is it. Even if you had no contract of any kind, she would have never won in court, and you must be a lot nicer then I am....wow!

__________________

Peladu

I agree with joasis,

And once things got out of control, I would have told her to go 'pound sand.'

joasis

I read that whole thing again, and I still can't believe it. I know you want to make customers happy, but geez! I am sure others will have a ton of opinions, but it is basic...you can't rape the willing and you, my friend have been screwed.

__________________

Grainywood

Yep. Here is however the letter I wrote to her:

I went above and beyond the scope of the contract by paying for the upgrade of your substandard toilet flange and the old faucet leads both of which were problems with your fixtures that were pre existing conditions. Any contractor would have refused to pay for such upgrades since it is not within the scope of the flooring for one and a pre existing condition of your house for another. We put things back AS IS, not by upgrading fixtures. If there needs to be an upgrade because of age related deterioration or simple incompatibility with the new condition due to the remodel, it is paid for by the Homeowner. A contract sum is for the written scope in the contract. No where in the contract does it say it includes an upgrade to your plumbing or any other fixtures. In the course of any remodel, conditions are revealed that require additional work which Homeowners should understand are their responsibility. It is what's called "Concealed Conditions". Further it is written in the contract that any work required by other trades are the responsibility of the Owners. I can email you a copy that has your signature on it.

It is this lack of Homeowner acknowledgement that concerns me as my wife conveyed to me from the beginning that you seemed to be thinking of adding even more upgrades should they be necessary: 1) the potential replacement of the toilet pipe under the floor boards due to age apparently relayed to you by the plumber 2) the entire faucet replacement because your leads were out of date (plumber quoted) and thus incompatible with your new floor height, 3) or your pedestal sink reinstalled correctly because it was initially installed sub code (The plumber said there was no back brace behind the sheet rock to screw the sink into. He may have said something else to you, but this was what was conveyed to my wife and confirmed by your husband when speaking to her about "accepting" the reinstallation of the sink as it was before.) That you would hold a flooring contractor responsible because he didn't tell you all these potential conditions up front is unreasonable. These are all conditions pre existing to your house and as such your responsibility to fix. Similarly your toilet flange and faucet leads which my wife did pay for were your responsibility as well. I believe we went over this when I was over.

We deal with many customers and many situations and 95 percent of the clients understand their responsibility as Homeowners to pre existing conditions that require attention to complete a project. It would be the same as if a contractor told you it would cost a set amount to replace your hardwood floors and upon removal of the old floor, found the joists of your subfloor required replacement as well. It may not be in the contract as written, but the precise lack of it's mention does not obligate the contractor to cover the expense. In fact it excludes it. If added, it is added as a change order. I chose to let my wife's payment to the plumber stand but as a contractor I never agreed it was within the scope of the work and my wife as an employee on my payroll does not have the power to make such decisions.

Paying for your plumbing upgrade was a courtesy, not one of obligation to our contract. That you see my courtesy as a continuing responsibility for your plumbing problems is troubling. To end this amicably and fairly if there is further plumbing work you want, I will exercise my contract terms to convert the $720 paid for your upgrades to the plumber into a balance of moneys owed which you can put towards further plumbing work you think is required. This may not be what you want to hear but given you received goods and works that were not entitled in the scope of work and explicitly are excluded by the language of my contract, it is more then a fair exchange.

Further plumbing work will not however include upgrades due to age related deterioration, sub code conditions existing from prior work that just happens to come to light with the new plumbing work. It is unreasonable to think a contractor can be held responsible for such things. If this were the case, there would be no point to the "scope of work" clause in a contract. A Homeowner could add whatever he or she thinks is in confluence with the project at hand. No homeowner is entitled to such latitude.

I strive to make all my customers happy but there is a reason for the wording of the contract and when I have customers who have difficulty defining the limits to the scope of work, they need only refer to the contract to know what is covered and what is not. Again if you need another copy of the contract to verify this, I will email one over.

__________________
"I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination."

Mike Finley

I hope you have an arbitration clause in your contract she signed. If you do, the only further contact I would have with her is to inform her of her right to arbitration. Based on what you have shown here if she goes to arbitration that will be the end of it, she isn't going to get any farther.

reveivl

Do whatever you need to to get rid of this woman asap, I think she isn't going to get it by you explaining it to her in a letter. I can feel every contractor reading this doing some superstitious "not me next, please" move. (Touch wood)

__________________
From where does knowledge come? If you need to know what is in a box, you could ask someone (not reliable), you could pray, (not useful), you can consult with the scripture (not helpful) or you could open the box (science)

Grainywood

Forking over a few hundred bucks to have an attorney write the letter instead. She said all I needed was to make clear what each party's obligations were. And definitely don't go over there to "fix" whatever she says is wrong, just opens up more room for her to add stuff.

Nothing else I'm willing to do at this point anyway.

Lessons learned. I was just trying to keep a client happy. I'm sure we've all done a few things that we didn't have to because we knew it would be worse to pursue it then to resolve it quickly as possible. But I'm sticking to my contract from now on. The problem is, CA contracts are lengthy as hell on top of which I have so many disclaimers it reads like a really unfriendly contract to homeowners. Have you seen CA's arbitration clause? Is it this long in all the states or just here?

How regulated are the contracts in your area? CA's reads like a "how to screw a contractor before they can screw you" pamphlet. There are so many disclosures/warnings about what bad stuff a contractor could do to a HO that there's hardly any room for anyone to see what's really the business at hand.

__________________
"I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination."

J DoubleD FLoor

No help here but, think HappyGilmore .... picture her head being some type of ball and whack away..... my idea of angermanagment ... hehe No I ahum don't condone that ... But honestly do what ever you can to run now ... your are in very deep but it's not time to prop up the grave marker yet.

__________________
Quality is not expensive ... It's PRICELESS !!!
www.neoflooringco.com