This business is not BBB accredited.

Certified Arborist Tree Care LLC

Phone: (425) 739-6730 Fax: (866) 241-5232 810 19th Ln W, Kirkland, WA 98033 http://www.CertifiedArboristTreeCare.com


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Description

This company offers arborist consulting services, including tree assessments, and arborist reports.


BBB Accreditation

This business is not BBB accredited.

Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.

To be accredited by BBB, a business must apply for accreditation and BBB must determine that the business meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses must pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that <em>lowered</em> the rating for Certified Arborist Tree Care LLC include:

  • Failure to have a required competency license

Factors that raised the rating for Certified Arborist Tree Care LLC include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

1 complaint closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 1
Total Closed Complaints 1

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Certified Arborist Tree Care LLC
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: May 18, 2005 Business started: 06/01/2004 Business started locally: 06/01/2004
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Washington Secretary of State Corporations Division
801 Capitol Way S, Olympia WA 98504
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps
Phone Number: (360) 725-0377
corps@sos.wa.gov

Washington Department of Labor & Industries
7273 Linderson Way SW, Tumwater WA 98501
http://www.lni.wa.gov
Phone Number: (800) 647-0982

Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Mr. John Deutsch, Owner
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. John Deutsch, Owner
Business Category

Tree Service Arborist Environmental Consulting & Contracting Landscape Designers

Alternate Business Names
Arbormaster Tree Care
Licensing

According to Washington Department of Labor & Industries, Certified Arborist Tree Care LLC's contractors license is suspended as of April 19, 2013, and expired as of June 24, 2014. To verify the company's current status, please contact the Department at (800) 647-0982 or www.lni.wa.gov.


Additional Locations

  • THIS LOCATION IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED

    810 19th Ln W

    Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 739-6730

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

10/21/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This company is an arborist who is asked to evaluate a hazardous small group of trees leaning over a residence. The city of Kirkland, WA requires an arborist report, specifically to include a TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualification). The arborist completed his report with the exception of the TRAQ, which the City has told is required. He made a verbal promise at the time of his assessment that he would be able to convince the city that the trees were a hazard, a promise he did not deliver. We have repeatedly requested that he complete a TRAQ (which we paid for with the initial report), but he now ignores our e-mails.

Desired Settlement: Completion of a TRAQ or a complete refund, in a timely manner.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/10/06) */ The details of the 10 last emails show clearly some misunderstanding and our willingness to address the situation. Email #10 from ******** Sept 19 I just received a letter from City of Kirkland (dated September 16th) that the report that wrote for us you did not sufficiently demonstrate the trees that we wanted to have removed are "hazard and nuisance." They told me that your report did not sufficiently document that issue. Therefore, they rejected our request to have the trees removed. We would like you to modify your report so that the report meets the city's standard. (Oct. 6 NOTE: ******* did NOT request a TRAQ form; she wanted the original report revised to meet City of Kirkland standards) Email #9 from ******** Sept 19 Here is the letter that we received from the city of Kirkland. Email #8 from ****, Sept 19 I will have **** look this over today when he gets back from his assessments today. Email #7 from ******** Sept 22 I look forward to receiving a modified report. Email #6 from ****, Sept 23 Re. the letter from the COK... it states that the reason that the trees are not allowed to be removed is "Because of the trees location within a high landslide area and a stream buffer, the trees must meet ... the hazard criteria in order to be approved for removal" To explain this.. trees that are in CRITICAL ZONES such as erosion/landslide areas, are very difficult to get removal permits. The tree must clearly be a high risk as per the TRAQ (Tree Risk Assessment Qualification) Your trees are not in the high risk category as per the matix formulas that we use for TRA. My report that you submitted states that I believe these trees should be removed. We cannot submit a TRA form for these three trees as the category for these trees will only be perhaps a moderate risk. "Moderate Risk" is not acceptable for the COK. (Oct. 6 NOTE: I tried to make it clear... the COK will reject the application for removal as the trees in question are NOT high or extreme risk as the TRAQ form would indicate) Of course I feel these trees should be removed. But the peer review panel holds a differing opinion.. Approx three times a year this happens (less than 5% of the reports that I write) I was not aware that the area was a "high landslide areas" My suggestion is that you retain another arborist who thinks as I do. If two TRAQ certified arborists argue that the trees should be removed... then you have a better chance. It is more difficult for them to hold their position when two independent TRAQ arborists arrive at the same conclusion. But remember, your trees do not, at this time, come up with a "HIGH RISK" rating as per our criteria that we use. If the trees were not in such a "high landslide area" they would have more than likely approved the recommendation for removal. It is NOT the format that they mention in this letter. If you would like me to do a TRA form, which is often done, it will be a guaranteed failure as your numbers do not add up to "high risk" Half a year ago, a client of mine got a second opinion and they changed their ruling. But your chances are less due to the designation: sensitive area. Email #5 from *******, Sept 24 I did not mention this before. However, when I personally went in to obtain the denial letter from COK office (because we have not heard from them for several weeks after submitting the application), they verbally told me that the report "does not show sufficient evidence to support hazard or nuisance." (Oct. 6 NOTE: It is impossible to provide evidence that these trees are of high or extreme hazard because they are not hazardous according to the TRAQ criteria ) One of the suggestions that they had was for you to call their arborist and explain further as to what makes you believe that the trees should be removed. They told me that your report does not demonstrate that. Email #4 from ****, Sept 24 .... My report clearly shows major concerns... major leaning toward your house... but I did not do the standard Tree Risk Assessment form as your score for your trees would be LOW for two trees.. probably LOW for the third with a chance of it being MODERATE. Trees would have to be designated HIGH RISK or EXTREME RISK. Simply put, we cannot provide evidence for HIGH or EXTREME ratings. But again, I completely disagree with the City on this matter. As time passess, those trees will become more hazardous as they increase in high, size (mass) but at this point in time... the risk rating is too low for the CITY.. Email #3 from *******, Sept 24 ....Despite the chance that two of the trees are low risk and the third (the cottonwood) would only be moderate risk, we would still like the tree risk assessment form to be completed. (Oct. 6 Note: this is the first time they made it clear that they wanted a TRAQ assessment done. The City never stated that they wanted a TRAQ form completed according to the documents that ******* sent to me.)Part of the problem is that the city needs that format in order for them to substantiate the risk that is posed to our residence. Their conclusion was based upon a "peer-review" process, and not an independent risk assessment process performed by them. If the assessment form is completed and they still do not approve, then at that point my husband and I have the option and chance to appeal, as well as the option to obtain a third arborist's opinion. We are very concerned about the cottonwood tree in particular (which the city's own arborist said in his own words that at a certain point could uproot and collapse without warning). Could you please complete and e-mail the tree risk assessment form? Unfortunately, we have to follow the city's timeline and we have to deliver it to the city before September 30th. Email #2 from *******, Sept 30 ....We have not heard back from you. We need the tree assessment form from you. We will be turning that from along with a letter that we wrote to the city. We need to turn all that in tomorrow. (Oct. 6 Note: Sept 24 is the first definitive request for the TRAQ forms. The second request was done on this day, Sept 30. Two days later they filed a complaint with the BBB. There statement that "We have repeatedly requested that he complete a TRAQ (which we paid for with the initial report), but he now ignores our e-mails." is false. There were only two specific requests for the TRAQ Sept 24 and Sept 30. Also, it is completely false that they state they paid for a TRAQ.... They paid for my site evaluation and my arborist report that was emailed to them on Aug 16... It was not for a couple of weeks later that they were even aware that other types of assessments were options... such as a TRAQ) Email #1 from ****, Oct 6 ..... In order to do the TRAQ risk assessment, I will need to do another site visit. I have been in Vancouver BC since the end of September, I will be back in Kirkland this Friday, so I could complete it then and leave it at your house on Friday. This is not part of the original contract. If I had know you needed only the TRAQ form, I would not have prepared the other report. But because of your unexpected difficulties with the City of Kirkland, there will not be the normal extra charges (another site visit and completion of three form for each tree) Please confirm by email that you would like this done on Fri. In the subject line, put ATTENTION **** URGENT... it may be better to compose a new email. (Oct. 6 Note: To do a TRAQ assessment would require another site visit. I left for Vancouver BC at the end of September, and I thought the issue was solved with ******* when I left. Clearly this was not the case. I responded on Oct 6 with this email above, before I even knew they had filed a complaint with the BBB. I am always more than willing to revise reports so that they conform to city requirements, as I have done numerous times in the last 15 years. And certainly, I am willing, at no extra charge, to do a TRAQ assessment, which was definitely not in the original contract with *******, even though I know that the results will only decrease their chances for getting a permit due to the low risk nature of these trees.)