BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
In 45 counties of Middle Tennessee and Southern Kentucky

BBB Business Review

Is this your Business?

Consumer Complaints

BBB Accredited Business since 04/20/1999

The Jones Company of Tennessee, LLC

Phone: (615) 771-8006Fax: (615) 771-0370

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

Customer Complaints Summary

5 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Guarantee / Warranty Issues2
Problems with Product / Service3
Advertising / Sales Issues0
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Total Closed Complaints5

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (5)BBB Closure Definitions
03/24/2014Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Failure to honor service under the terms of warranties

Complaint: Experienced issue with our flooring, which is under warranty. Warranty dept has been slow to respond. Customer service poor. Floor still not repaired.
At our 90-day warranty inspection, it was noted that we had some problems with our hardwood flooring - some separation, A-framing, and a broken board. The inspection request was turned in to the Jones Co. in mid-November. Over the course of several months, two visits were made to our home by a **** *** representative (the company who laid the flooring). At the first visit, an assessment was made. The flooring had to be ordered before it could be replaced, and this process took approximately 1 month. When someone came out to replace the flooring that was damaged/separated/raised, I was told that the wood had expanded too much, and that the new boards would not fit into the space where the old boards were removed. The two boards that had been removed were laid back down and taped to the rest of the floor. There was also one spot where they had cut a hole in the flooring (approximately 2 x 4 inches), that they covered over with tape.

At this point, **** *** contacted Mohawk flooring to request an independent inspection. This process took several weeks. An inspector did come to our home on 02/10/14. Two weeks later, I contacted **** **** who told me they had not received a report. They followed up with Mohawk and received verbal notice that the complaint had been denied; I assume this means that Mohawk was not at fault (no fault with the product itself). **** *** was going to obtain the written report and call me back. A day later, I received a call from **** (Jones Co.), who is handling warranty issues in our neighborhood. He told me he would follow up with Rite Rug every day until the report was received.

On 03/06/14, I contacted **** **** They still had not received a written report, and it appears that they have done nothing to follow-up since our last phone call. *****, the representative from **** **** also said she had not heard from **** since last week when I had spoken with him, so apparently he was not following up on the report as he had promised.

It has been 3.5 months since this process started, and our hardwood flooring is still separated, A-framing, and now we have several spots where it is either taped down or tape is covering a hole. During this process, I have attempted to contact ****, head of the warranty department, 3 times. Each time, I have had to leave a voicemail, and I receive a call back from ***** the local warranty contractor. I do not feel as if anyone is working on this issue except for myself. I am having to contact **** *** directly because Jones is not following up in a timely manner, and **** *** does not contact me. I do not feel that a warranty issue is MY responsibility. I paid for this house with the guarantee by Jones that any defects would be corrected at a 90-day and a 1-year warranty period. The sales team at Jones Co. was very efficient, accommodating, and pleasant. They were very quick to get us into a house, and now once we have an issue, no one seems to be making our repairs a priority.

Initial Business Response
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to her complaint. This homeowner closed on her home on 8/16/13. She contacted our office on 11/11/13 regarding issues with her hardwood. Our warranty representative examined the floors and a work order was sent to our vendor, Rite Rug, on 11/22/14. **** *** went to their home on 12/5/13 and inspected the hardwood as to what repairs would be needed. It was determined that 14 boards needed replaced and this was scheduled with the homeowner for 1/16/14. The installer went out to replace those boards and it was decided by both the homeowner and the installer that this should be referred to the manufacturer for inspection. A claim was filed with Mohawk on 1/21/14 and an independent inspector examined the hardwood on 2/10/14. **** *** finally received a denial letter from Mohawk and a copy of the independent inspector's report on 3/6/14 (the denial decision had been given to them verbally but they needed the inspectors report before moving forward). **** *** has re-scheduled replacement of the original 14 boards with the homeowner on 3/14/14. At the time of that appointment **** *** is also sending their manager with the installer to better assess the situation.
Our warranty representative tried to keep the homeowner in the loop during this process but it took over 3 weeks from the time the claim was filed until the inspection and then another 3 weeks after the inspection before we could get their decision. We are aware that this has taken a long period of time to resolve but not an unusual amount of time when dealing with a manufacturer claim. The homeowner's desired resolution was that her flooring be replaced/repaired by the end of March 2014 and her repair is scheduled for March 14.
If further information is required, please let us know.

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

04/15/2013Guarantee / Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Guarantee or Warranty Complaint Issue

Complaint: Since purchasing this home in 2005, there have been a series of problems that point to shoddy and/or improper workmanship.
I contacted the company and outlined the numerous issues I have with the house. Most recently with the drywall tape peeling throughout the house and isses with deterioration of the concrete stoop and driveway. The Jones Company responded by saying these were not covered by the warranty. I agree under normal circumstances they would not be covered by a warranty. However, I continue to uncover issues with improper and shoddy workmanship that would not normally be immediately evident. I did not ask the company to address any of the prior issues only the drywall and concrete issues. I was very disappointed the company could not even give me the courtesy of investigating the problems. Having owned numerous homes in other parts of the country I have never had the types of problems and issues as I have with this house. When I moved to Nashville, I chose a Jones home because of their reputation for quality and cusotmer service. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience with this house.

Business' Initial Response
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint. This homeowner closed on her Jones Company home on 4/22/05. At that time, she was given our written 1-10 Guarantee. This included a 1-year warranty for any defects in materials and workmanship in the building of her home. This also included a 10 year structural warranty that guarantees the load bearing systems, such as the foundation, girders, load bearing walls, etc. will perform their load bearing functions for 10 years.

She contacted our Warranty Department by phone on 3/12/13 with complaints of drywall cracking, driveway cracks, and cracked concrete on her front porch. The homeowner had not contacted us with any issues since 8/06 until her phone call. It was explained that the 1-year warranty on her home expired on 4/21/06 and that the issues she was concerned with were not structural and therefore not covered by warranty. She was not satisfied with that response and was told to submit her issues in writing so they could be reviewed by management.

I have enclosed her letter dated 3/15/12 (received 3/19/13). A copy of our response dated 3/21/13 written by ****** ******, Vice President of Operations, is also enclosed.

We feel we have handled this homeowner's complaint per our written warranty guidelines. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this complaint and if further information is needed, please let us know

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

06/04/2012Problems with Product / Service
07/20/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Defective, damaged, or incorrect product received

Complaint: The front steps on the house were not constructed correctly.
We bought the house in 2007 after it was built the same year. The steps started to sink the first year we bought the house, and they were cosmetically repaired. However, as we know now they continued to sink and are a safety hazard now. They should have been tied into the house better with the correct fill, prior to the concrete being poured.

Business' Initial Response
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint stating that the front steps of his home were not constructed correctly. This home met all applicable building codes prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy when the homeowner closed on this home on 6/29/07. At the time of closing, he was given The Jones Company 1-10 Guarantee outlining warranty coverage for the home. Per our builder, the top front step developed a small hairline concrete crack after closing that was repaired by re-mortaring the crack. Our warranty guidelines state; "The Jones Company will also take whatever action may be deemed necessary or appropriate to repair any stoops, steps or garage floor which, during the first year of the Guarantee, settle, heave or separate in excess of one (1) inch from the residential structure." The crack was repaired although it was hairline and did not meet the 1" requirement for repair.

On 12/28/11 the homeowner contacted us regarding his steps settling. The homeowner was told at that time that the steps were covered by his 1-year warranty, which expired on 6/28/08. However, we offered to send out one of our warranty representatives to inspect the steps and give him advice on having them repaired. He was unable to meet with our representative but this was discussed by phone with the representative and he was again told that this was not warranty.

On 3/31/13 he contacted us again regarding the steps sinking. Our area manager inspected the steps and determined that the steps had settled and was not covered under warranty. Per our e-mail to the homeowner he was told that this issue would not be covered by our structural warranty as our structural warranty covered the load bearing systems of the property. Steps and porches are not load bearing systems and therefore not covered by our 10-year structural warranty.

We feel we have met our warranty obligations to this homeowner. If you have any questions, please let us know.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

The excerpts below describe the published standards for construction that is available to the public for an understanding of how the industry works and (as in my case) what they will get for their money. The business standards can only be defined as what is understood by the industry and the contractors who successfully build proper construction.

The 1st paragraph below is the standard from the published information "Technical Notes 29 - Brick in Landscape Architecture - Pedestrian Applications July 1994." This explains to the general public how brick steps should be supported so they do not sink like the steps build for our home.

Support and Bonding. Brick steps and ramps are usually supported by a concrete base, but any material capable of supporting the brick properly could be used, if designed properly. Deflections or settlement of the support must be minimized to avoid cracking in the brickwork. Figure 6 shows a concrete support system for a step and ramp. Brick should be adequately bonded to the support or restrained around its perimeter to avoid loosening of units. Mortar is usually used to bond the brick to the concrete. This paving system is very effective when proper materials and installation are used. Dowels or ties into the mortar joints are not necessary since the mortar provides adequate bond. Newer types of adhesives are now being used to bond the brick directly to the concrete. These adhesives must be durable to withstand the severity of its environment. Adhesives can only be used when the concrete surface is fairly even and free of contaminants. Caulks and sealants are not appropriate for this purpose.

Adequate footings should be designed for the step or ramp support. The depth of the footings should extend below the frost line. Since the paving assembly is supported on its own footing, an isolation joint should be used between the pavement and building and between the pavement and ramps or steps.

The 2nd article below is an explanation of how concrete should be compacted for residential construction. This was not done correctly when our steps were built, and the Jones Company should understand the problem was created and did not just happen over time. The city codes (that The Jones Company refers to) may not cover the correct techniques, but are not meant to determine the way construction is managed. Proper standards of construction should be managed correctly to ensure the workmanship is completed so that construction will last.

From: Residential Concrete September-October 2007
Posted on: September 20, 2007

Proper subgrade compaction reduces concrete failure concerns

Concrete slabs perform best when they are even thickness. The worker shown here is using a 2x4 to strike flat subgrade. Drylines serve as a guide to ensure that the subgrade has proper elevation.

When it comes to compacting a subgrade for a residential application, consistency, quality, and good practice by the contractor are critical to prevent concrete cracking and sinking concerns for the homeowner.

A residential contractor must ensure that the site builder avoids the temptation to poorly prepare a subgrade. A low-quality subgrade results in unexpected settling and water accumulation against the foundation leading to seepage and a weakening of the foundation. Poorly compacted subgrades also can be cited for the cracking and sinking of sidewalks, driveways, and patios. Ultimately, it is the homeowner who will bear the repair expenses, especially when settlement causes slabs to move water in the direction of the house.

Subgrade Failure
According to the Portland Cement Association, cracks, slab settlement, and structural failure can result from an inadequately prepared and poorly compacted subgrade. In the case of slab on ground for residential applications, an ideal subgrade should be well drained, have a uniform bearing capacity, achieve the appropriate compaction density, have the correct slope, and be free of sod, organic matter, and frost.
What causes an uneven subgrade in a residential project? First, the presence of soft, unstable soil mixed with hard and rocky soil. Another reason addressed later in this article may be filling low areas or backfilling without adequate compaction.

Vibratory plate compactors do a good job of compacting fill. Surfaces are flat afterward, making slab shrinkage possible with little resistance from the ground.

In order to achieve a level, firm subgrade, soft or saturated soils and rocks must be removed during initial excavation. During excavation, dirt is pushed into low areas (fill) from other areas (cut). For compacted fill in low areas, the soil should have the same density as in cut areas.
It is important that contractors identify what is cut and what is fill when constructing a subbase. Operators of heavy machinery can unknowingly move or mix the cut and fill materials creating identity problems between the two.
Depending on the environment and geographic location of the project, builders may encounter native soils that offer the ideal strength for supporting a slab, which can then be placed directly on the soil. However in many areas, finding an onsite soil adequate for use as fill may be difficult.

Fill Alternatives
With slab-on-grade foundations, an alternative to native soil material may be used to restore grade. These imported fills may include granular materials such as sand, gravel, or crushed stone. These high-strength and permeable materials offer low compressibility, which is ideal for a slab-support system.
"Six inches of well-graded gravel or crushed stone material properly compacted will give good results," said *************, a sales engineer manager for ***********************************
When properly compacted, both native soils or imported granular materials can provide good support. It must be noted, however, that using good material cannot fix poor compaction.
"Granular material placed under the slab can be open graded, which some believe is self-compacting. Sand and other material should be compacted," says **********, owner of ***********************, *************
Whether it is a foundation, sidewalk, driveway, or patio, native soil or granular material cannot be simply placed in the fill area and then covered with concrete.
It is critical that the contractor require the compaction of all fill materials in proper lifts, regardless if it is a native soil or a granular material to provide a flat, dense subgrade. If the fill material is not compacted in a uniform fashion, uneven settling will occur, resulting in cracks in the concrete and destroyed work.

Compaction Necessities
It is advisable to compact the soil near optimum moisture content to achieve required density levels. This is most likely to occur when the soil is freshly excavated. Maximum compaction is possible before the material has dried out too much or been exposed to periods of rain where water can collect. If the soil is compacted during or shortly after the grading process, there are fewer pores in the material that can absorb water.
Primarily used for larger home site developments, proof rolling is a measure that allows contractors to identify whether or not the subgrade has been adequately compacted. Unstable or improperly compacted soil can be identified by driving a fully loaded dump truck or a similar piece of heavy equipment over the compacted area to reveal unusual soil movement or notably deep tire rutting.

The measured density of the subgrade material for a residential application should be 90% to 95% of the Standard Proctor Density. This density can be achieved using a combination of three to four passes **** a vibratory plate compactor or rammer, in addition to good moisture content in the subbase.

Ideally, compactable fill should be watered or "processed" so that it contains approximately 12% moisture throughout, in order to achieve maximum compaction.
Some fill materials also provide good drainage properties and can be used to avoid moisture concentrations beneath the slab.
A proper moisture level in the subbase not only helps with consolidation, it also reduces bleeding out of the water from the base of the concrete slab.
In order to keep the concrete as close to its design strength, forms should be dampened to keep water from being drawn out of the concrete.

All too often, builders do not adequately prepare the subgrade for concrete foundations, sidewalks, driveways, or patios. The concrete contractor is responsible for ensuring that granular backfill receives proper compaction, density, and moisture levels prior to the placement of concrete. Some contractors will specify in their contracts that they are responsible for the proper compaction of any fill materials that they place, but not materials placed by others. It becomes the builder's responsibility to ensure that fill placed prior to th

Business' Final Response
I would like to address this homeowner's response dated 7/15/13 alleging faulty workmanship when building his home. The front steps of his home were poured per building codes and were warranted for defects in materials and workmanship for one year by The Jones Company. This home closed on June 29, 2007 and the homeowner was given a copy of our 1-10 Guarantee at that time. This home also carries a 10-year structural warranty covering load-bearing systems. However, steps are not load bearing and not covered by that warranty. I have enclosed a copy of the page from our 1-10 Guarantee that covers steps and settling. As previously stated, this issue is no longer covered by our warranty.

Please let me know if additional information is required.

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined the company provided proper verification that indicated there was no obligation to resolve the issues of the complaint.

05/11/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Improper or inferior repair

Complaint: The Jones Company has said they would no longer make repairs to my home however I have an Engineer's report saying they did not prior repairs properly
Closed on my home 6/30/10. Have had truss uplift issues since the first cold night in 10/2010. My continued issues with the truss uplift and drywall cracks made me decide to call a third party to see if they could determine why these re-occurring issues remain after ****** ****** with The Jones Company claims to have made the appropriate repairs. I hired ************************************** to come take a look at the structural design of my home, issues I continue to have, and the prior repairs that had been made by The Jones Company. I sent The Jones Company a copy of the report.

I asked that The Jones Company send a professional truss engineer/framer to properly correct the issues found in the attic and to make the repairs suggested by **************************************.

*In most areas where the partition wall is perpendicular to the truss span there was no additional blocking or metal clips observed for attachment of the drywall ceiling panels to the top of the interior partition walls.
*The connection that was provided between the truss and partition wall is a ****** construction
detail. This connection detail does not allow for any movement of the truss and results in a crack
along the wall/ceiling interface. The proper construction detail is to provide a positive attachment of the drywall ceiling panel to the top plate of the interior partition wall. Then the drywall ceiling panel is fastened to the bottom chord of the truss a minimum of 12-inches away from the face of the wall. The drywall ceiling panel is typically fastened to the partition wall by installing 2x blocking on top of the interior partition wall between the trusses. The blocking will overhang the face of the stud wall on each side providing a nailing surface to which the drywall ceiling panel can be fastened. This connection detail will allow some flexibility in the drywall ceiling panel allowing it to bend slightly as the truss lifts off the partition wall.
* Reportedly, the fasteners holding the drywall to the bottom chord of the truss nearest the interior walls have been removed by the builder in an attempt to stabilize the movement in the drywall joint. According to the Wood Truss Council of America's (WTCA)publication "Partition Separation, Prevention & Solutions" simply removing the fasteners nearest the partition wall is not enough to stabilize the joint. The ceiling drywall must also be secured to the top of the partition wall with solid blocking or metal clips (for new construction). Recommend that 2 - 2x4s or a 2x8 block be nailed or screwed to the top of the interior partition wall top plate between the roof trusses. Then drywall screws must be installed through the ceiling drywall and into the 2x blocking.
* The edge of the drywall ceiling panels were unsupported near the left front corner of the sunroom and the right front corner of the family room above the opening between the family room and main hall.
* To the right of the opening to the hallway leading to the laundry room, wood blocking was fastened to the side of the wood trusses to support the drywall. Movement in the wood trusses has likely translated to the corner where a drywall panel joint originates. Recommend that the wood framing be detached from the side of the trusses and that the panel joint be moved away from the corner by installing a full width panel starting at the front wall of the kitchen cabinet nook. The length of the panel should also extend past the corner and the panel edges supported by the wall per details shown in publication GA-216.
*The crack in the garage ceiling could be remedied by securing the ceiling in the cove to 2x6 joists installed between rafters and secured to walls and remove the fastners from the main house truss.
In addition to the drywall and these repairs above, I am asking that the insulation be moved back into proper position as I was also informed it was apparently moved during prior repairs and not moved back as it should be.

Business' Initial Response
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint. This homeowner closed on her home on 6/29/10. She received our written 1-10 Guarantee at the time of closing. This warranty covers defects in materials and workmanship for 1 year and load bearing functions for 10 years.

In December of 2010 the homeowner notified us of some issues with drywall cracking and separation. Our area manager inspected this and it was explained that the drywall separations and cracks she was experiencing were due to truss uplift and not caused by a structural defect or deficiency. The Jones Company did agree to have this inspected by a third party engineer to confirm that no structural deficiencies were present. I have enclosed a copy of the report we received from Lamb Engineering dated February 9, 2011. Per his report there was no structural deficiency noted and he confirmed that the drywall cracks were consistent with truss uplift related to thermal and moisture variation that occurs to truss chords. There was a single roof truss that he recommended be repaired and we did so per his recommendations.

In March of 2011 the homeowner submitted a list of specific drywall cracks and separations that she wanted repaired. At that time, we made adjustments to the trusses and repaired and painted her drywall issues.

In November of 2011 she contacted us again stating that she was having additional drywall cracking. In March of 2012 we did some additional drywall and painting repairs although her one-year warranty covering this had expired on 6/28/11.

She contacted us again at the end of December 2012 about her "annual truss uplift" issues and requested another third party inspection. I have enclosed a letter dated January 10, 2013 from ****** ******, Director Operations at the Jones Company, stating that we would not be hiring a third party inspector. She was informed that any additional drywall cracks would be her responsibility to maintain, as these are cosmetic.

The homeowner recently hired an engineer to address her drywall cracks. I have enclosed a copy of her letter and the engineer report that was sent to us on 3/27/13. The engineer has made several suggestions on repairing truss uplift but states that the hairline drywall cracks and separations at ceiling/wall joints do not appear to have been caused by a structural defect or deficiency.

Drywall cracking and separation is a cosmetic issue and is not covered by her structural warranty. We feel we have met our warranty obligations in handling this issue and have repaired her truss uplift per our building standards.

We will move the attic insulation back into the proper position as she has requested in her recent letter.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am puzzled by the Jones response. They continue to say this is a cosmetic issue that is only warranted for a year however they are willing to make some of the cosmetic repairs for the 4th time but still not resolve the causing factor which is in the attic? This makes no sense. They want to send their subs in and make them waste their time and money and my time and money to go through these cosmetic repairs just to have the situation return. I have a licensed engineer's report stating what needs to be done to correct the re-occurring issue. The truss manufacturer and the Jone Co engineer has not even been in my attic since the first occurrence was reported in 2010. Jones has removed items and been in my attic since that time so the truss manufacturer has no idea what my attic looks like today. According to a licensed engineer that I had to personally pay to come determine the cause of this re-occurring issue, the solution starts in the attic. I have collected contractors' estimates to make the required repairs that they can see even needs to be made and they are $6k to $8k for the attic work alone. Therefore, I am not satisfied with the Jones response.

Business' Final Response
We would like to add to our previous correspondence following this homeowner's response of April 26, 2013.

Our warranty representative went to this home on Friday, May 3, 2013 to document the drywall cracking and separation that has recurred. The items pointed out by the homeowner are cosmetic.

The homeowner closed on her home on 6/29/10. Our warranty states that "The Jones Company will, one time during the 1 year period of the Guarantee, repair any cracks exceeding one-eight inch in width in interior walls and ceilings, seam lines and cracks exceeding one-eight inch in width in gypsum wall board installations. We feel that we have followed are warranty guidelines in making the repairs on this home.

This home is also covered by our 10-year structural warranty. As stated by her engineer these hairline cracks and separations at ceiling/wall joints do not appear to have been caused by a structural defect or deficiency.

We have repaired her truss uplift per recommendations made by the truss manufacturer and feel this has been adequately repaired.

As a courtesy to this homeowner, we would like to have the opportunity to make repairs to the following areas:
1. Above the refrigerator repair the 8-10" hairline crack that has occurred in an area that did not get sanded.
2. At the vaulted ceiling where the great room goes into the foyer repair an area where the drywall tape has busted.
3. Where the wall meets the ceiling in the sunroom repair a hairline crack.
4. Move the attic insulation back into the proper position

I hope this will be satisfactory to the homeowner.

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined the company made a reasonable offer to resolve the issues, but the consumer did not accept the offer.


What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.


BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.