BBB Business Review

BBB Accredited Business since 08/11/2003

Sarasota Glass & Mirror

Phone: (941) 921-4633Fax: (941) 921-47333108 Clark Rd, SarasotaFL 34231-7308

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

Description

This company offers installation and repair of glass, mirrors, interior and exterior doors, windows, and shower doors.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since 08/11/2003

BBB has determined that Sarasota Glass & Mirror meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

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

Factors that raised Sarasota Glass & Mirror's rating include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
  • Response to 2 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.

Customer Complaints SummaryRead complaint details

2 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues1
Problems with Product / Service1
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints 2

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews Customer Reviews on Sarasota Glass & Mirror

Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience
Neutral Experience
Negative Experience
Total Customer Reviews 0 Customer Reviews

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (2)BBB Closure Definitions
04/01/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
Lousy workmanship, no follow up whatsoever, 8 months later still not complete
Contracted Company to replace defective windows, replace bathroom doors, check windows for leaking, and adjust doors throughout home on 06-26-2012. Gave $800 deposit with a total bill of $2880. Company came out several weeks later with no appointment while I was at work and daughter let them in to do work. The went upstairs and completely tore out the wrong door, frame, and busted up Travertine tile. I realized this when I got home that night. Called to tell them how displeased I was and that the wrong door had been removed. They said they would get on immediately. I called again several weeks later as I heard nothing from anyone. Was told they would be out to replace the door the following week. Came out again but with the wrong door and parts. Several weeks later they were back again, I had to call, to replace the correct doors. I waited as long as possible and had to leave out of town. I received a call for payment and sent payment without seeing finished product in November of 2012. Here is what I had to come home to. The door which was replaced they didnt even glue down the threshold which basically I can pick it up and see the outside. The front Mahogony doors (which were over $15,000 doors) they took a chisel of some sort and banged out the lock to get it to close properly, damaging the door case as well as jammed the second door look which know has broken inside the door casing. Not to mention opened the door to far and put the door **** through the wall. The doors they tore out the casing around the doors has been damaged as well as the screws are showing know. Since then numerous calls have been made to the point the were very direct as I seldom could ever receive the courtesy of a return phone call. They did come to the house on two different occasions to do some measurements to complete the job. Well, here we go again! No phone calls and no service. Finally the General Manager, ***** ****** came to the house on January 25, 2013. He measured for the third time and apologized and said he would stay on personally until the job was completed. Absolutely no response again and here we are February 20, 2013.

Desired Settlement
At this point I want the following fixed within 30 days or I will have no option other than to pursue other remedies. 1. Bathroom door piece to be sealed and enforced 2. Front Mahogony doors to be repaired to my satisfaction or replaced including adjusting door to close properly as well as lock which is broken in second door 3. Wall to be repaired 4. Windows to be sealed and checked for leaking 5. Door framing to be replaced around Doors which were removed unnecessarily 6. Screws to be capped

Business' Initial Response
Contact Name and Title: Kevin Lyons
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: ***********************
Customer has been contacted to set an appointment so that the issues with our work can be resolved in a timely manner.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Company did come on March 02, 2013 and did most of the work. They need to still replace lock on front door which they said should be replaced in a few days. Still have not heard from anyone.

Business' Final Response
We have taken action in the issues that the customer had.We believe all issues have been resolved.

01/22/2015Advertising / Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
Contract to install 11 Winguard windows.Breached contract, filed fraudulent lien, negligent, misrepresented facts, engaged in unfair, deceptive trace.
Contract with ***** ******* at Sarasota Mirror and Glass to purchase and install 11 Winguard impact and low E windows, with promises about quality, service, workmanship - i.e.,. to be per standard practice, per County code, per Building Permit, per manufacturer's installation instructions. Was negligent and breached contract, breached both express and implied promises, misrepresented facts, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. Windows not installed per standard practice, per Code, Per Building Permit, per manufacturer's instructions - despite many notices to contractor and many opportunities to remedy. As a result, failed inspection on multiple occasions: May 19, 2013, July 3, 2013, Oct. 7, 2013. Have still never passed inspection due to Code violations. Contract failed to included required language under Florida law, including 558 and 713. Despite negligence and lack of proper performance, filed fraudulent lien on our property, without following lawful instructions and falsely stating last date of furnishing, falsely stating value, failing to deduct costs of remediation, failing to follow instructions to provide notice to owner - indeed never served notice on owner at all. Failed to fulfill contract, breached both express and implied warranties, misrepresented facts before, during, and after services provided. Completely and utterly failed to provide services as represented and per 33-pages of representations to Owners and to Manatee County in Building Permit. Misrepresented to Owners that complied with all standard practices and property ready for inspection, when in fact had not followed Code, Permit, Manufacturer's instruction and Company. Evaluation of property by second builder revealed multiple Code violations, including Code violations inside the interior of the walls. No home owner would ever be aware that they were duped unless, as in our case, a second company came out and took windows out and looked beneath the surface. That is when we realized we had been completed duped and defrauded; that the Company's entire course of conduct with us was permeated by misrepresentations and deception.

Desired Settlement
Payment of all damages.

Business Response
I am counsel for Sarasota Glass and Mirror authorized to file this response. My client denies this claim. First, ******* and ***** ***** owe my client $8,825.42 for work done. The work was completed except for some punch list items. But the ****** refused to pay and denied my client access to complete the work. Instead, they claimed the work was improper, in what my client believes was an attempt to simply not pay the contract balance.

The ****** then obtained an unitemized estimate from another contractor for over $27,000.00, an outrageous amount, to allegedly complete the punch list. When my client reasonably requested a breakdown of this estimate, the ****** refused to provide it. Instead the ****** elected to file this baseless claim with the BBB.

The ****** have also slandered my client's business reputation by filing unfounded claims against my client on certain online social media sites.

My client stands ready, willing and able to complete the work if they are simply granted access to the property and provied they are paid the contract balance now past due and owing.

In summary, my client denies the claim and reserves all rights.

***** ** ******* Esquire
Board Certified - Business Litigation
******* ***** ***** and ***** ****
*** ***** *****
Sarasota, FL XXXXX
Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Fax: XXX-XXX-XXXX
E-mail: ***********@comcast.net
Web site: ************

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I. Introduction
The Consumer Complaint filed against Sarasota Glass and Mirror ("SGM") has two objectives: (1) to protect other unsuspecting consumers; and (2) to recover damages caused by SGM's admitted non-performance. The Consumers' full response, with Exhibits, is attached; an overview is below.

II. SGM's Response to Consumers' Complaint
Attorney ******** response, on behalf of SGM, does not appear to be based on a reasonable inquiry. The conclusory response lacks factual support and is not warranted by law. It thus continues to cause unnecessary delay in resolving this matter and unnecessary legal expenses which would be better spent on the remediation and repairs that SGM admits are necessary.

III. SGM's Repeated Admissions that Performance Remains Incomplete
SGM has repeatedly admitted, in both August and October 2014, in writing, that it never completed the contracted-for performance. Mr. ******** response also acknowledges that performance remains incomplete. Yet, SGM's response appears internally inconsistent in this regard. SGM both ignores the substantial remediation necessary and absurdly alleges that "the work was completed except for some punch list items," yet also states that SGM "stands ready, willing and able to complete the work."

IV. SGM's Previous, False Representations that Performance was Complete
In contrast, SGM previously, in May 2014, falsely represented to the Homeowners that it had properly completed its work and that it was ready for a final County inspection. Later, the Homeowners discovered that SGM had not, in fact, properly completed its work.
The salient point is not, as Mr. ****** alleges, that "they" (the Homeowners) "claimed the work was improper." The significant point is that SGM's performance repeatedly failed to pass ********** by County officials and remains in violation of Codean indisputable matter of public record.

V. SGM's False Allegation that SGM was Denied Access to Complete Work
SGM's response falsely states that the Homeowners "denied my client access to complete the work" and SGM would have one believe that they would have completed the work if they were "simply granted access to the property." Those allegations are misleading and not factually warranted. After SGM's promised two-day installation, on January 16-17, 2014, the Homeowners diligently provided repeated notices and opportunities to cure known defects.
Indeed, SGM has been on the premises on a total of ten different dates spanning ten months: January 16, January 17, February 12, February 19, March 5, April 3, May 7, May 12, July 3, and October 17, 2014. Yet, in ten months, SGM never remedied the defects and failed to perform competently and as promised. The Homeowners' appointments with SGM, including SGM's scheduling of PGT and County inspectors, consumed eighteen daysessentially 3.5 work weeks of the Homeowners' timebetween October 2013 and October 2014.

VI. Discovery of SGM's Incompetence and Termination
By August 2014, seven months after SGM promised that its performance would be completed, there was no reason for the Homeowners to believe that SGM was competent to properly perform. The Homeowners had discovered: (1) SGM did not perform as promised; (2) the windows were not installed per Permit; (3) SGM's performance failed two County inspections; (4) SGM was grossly negligent, both by installing the windows in violation of Code and in damaging property in their home; and (5) ***** ******* had failed to disclose, upon questioning at the time of contracting, that he had previous criminal charges for battery and criminal mischief. Had the Homeowners known any of the above in October 2013, they would not have entered the Contract. When the Homeowners discovered the above facts by August 2014, they terminated SGM and hired another contractor to complete the project.

VII. SGM's False Statement that a Debt is Owed
SGM falsely states that the Homeowners "owe my client $8,825.42 for work done," have "refused to pay," and the "contract balance is now past due and owing." SGM's allegation is neither supported by law nor fact.
SGM is well aware that no contract balance is due. The balance of payment for the contracted-for work was due upon satisfactory completion. SGM's own repeated admissions that the work was never completed and that substantial remediation is necessary controverts its allegation that there remains any debt due.
Further, common sense as well as fundamental principles of contract law dictate that a contract price must be adjusted for defective performance. Indeed, the lien law that SGM attempted to use for recovery provides exactly that, specifically stating: a contract price "must" be "diminished" by "defects in workmanship or materials or any other breaches of the contract."
Contrary to SGM's implication that the Homeowners "refused" to provide information, the Homeowners repeatedly provided estimates and requested that SGM pay for the damages they caused. For example, SGM was already emailed two estimates on October 21 and November 10, 2014, and sent another estimate by certified mail dated December 13, 2014.
Moreover, SGM held themselves out as experts and, as such, either know or should know how expensive it will be to re-perform the contract and repair all damages. Indeed, Attorney ****** himself was granted access to the premises on the Oct. 17, 2014, along with SGM's President, Mr. ********** *******, and licensed Contractor ***** *******. On that date, Attorney ******, Mr. *******, and ***** ******* performed a full inspection and were provided information about the defects and damages which had remained un-remedied for ten months.
A full year after the Contract was executed, on October 19, 2014, SGM itself again admitted, in writing, that remediation was necessary. For example, SGM admitted that it was "prepared to remove and reinstall windows to correct the buck strips in the window openings." This admission meant that the entire Contract would need to be re-performed: all old windows removed; old buck strips, inside of the walls, removed; new, correctly sized buck strips installed; new windows reinstalled; resealing; re-trimming; and repainting.
At the same time, SGM admitted that it had previously damaged the Homeowners' property and agreed, among other things: "Office floor to be repaired as needed." Likewise, SGM admitted their knowledge that two bedrooms had already been remediated with a new contractor, stating that those rooms "have had new windows installed by *********." Those were two emergency-egress windows which failed the first two inspections. Because the windows did not open properly, they posed an urgent health, welfare, and safety risk. SGM already knows that the Homeowners were forced to remediate those windows and have been repeatedly provided receipts for the cost$3931.31.
SGM's response is also misleading when it states that it was provided an "estimate from another contractor for over $27,000.00, an outrageous amount, to allegedly complete the punch list." After the Homeowners discovered, in August 2014 and thereafter, the inside-the-wall defects in the work performed by SGMfor example, the lack of buck strips, as admitted by SGMthe previous punch list became moot. Rather, as admitted by SGM itself, its grossly negligent installation now requires removal of all windows, replacement with new windows, complete remediation, and repair of all damages.
SGM's original contract price to install all windows in October 2013 was over $17,000. SGM itself admits that the remediation and repair process will take at least "7 days total"3.5 times longer than the entire first performance was to take. Accordingly, it should be no surprise to SGM that it will cost more than the original contract price to re-perform the project from scratch and to repair all property damage.

VIII. False Accusation of Slander Interposed for Improper Purposes
Finally, Attorney ****** should be well aware that telling the truth does not constitute slander and that his false accusation of slander is an unwarranted legal conclusion. Nowhere does the response specify any of the supposedly "unfounded claims" or identify any specific "online social media sites." In any event, SGM's failure to properly perform is already a matter of public record by County employees properly performing their official duties. The allegation of "slander" is thus interposed for improper purposes, including an attempt to intimidate the Homeowners and prevent them from stating the truth. There would be nothing to discuss if SGM had properly performed and if SGM would remit payment for the damages it has caused.

IX. Conclusion
In sum, it remains nonsensical for SGM to pay its attorney rather than to promptly pay for damages it caused and for remediation necessitated by their indisputable non-performance, whic

Final Business Response
The windows that *** ***** installed was a correction to a PGT manufacturing issue, not a SGM issue. Some windows still needed final trim parts that were left undone only for the inspector to see the installation. This is 10 minutes worth of work after a final inspection. The buck strips can be replaced and the PGT windows can be reinstalled. My client has and was always willing to do this. There is NO need for new windows again. They mention reinstalling windows and they also mention all new windows being replaced.
If SGM was not denied the opportunity to complete the work we would be done by now. My client has many emails to prove this.

My client has been and still is willing to perform any remaining work.

Thank you.

***** ** ******* Esquire
Board Certified - Business Litigation
******* ***** ***** and ***** ****
*** ***** *****
Sarasota, FL XXXXX
Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Fax: XXX-XXX-XXXX
E-mail: ***********@comcast.net
Web site: ************

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

The responses filed by Sarasota Glass and Mirror (“SGM”), both directly and via its attorney, Mr. ******, display a pattern and practice of communicating false, misleading, and deceptive information. They have not only made false misrepresentations to the Homeowners, but also to Manatee County and to the BBB. Attorney ******™s responses do not appear to be based on a reasonable inquiry, lack factual support, and are inconsistent with what he should know are the Homeowners™ legal rights and SGM™s legal responsibilities.

Detailed and accurate information has been provided by the Homeowners in their initial Complaint and December 2014 Response and Attachments, all of which are hereby incorporated as if fully stated herein.

II. Indisputable Facts

The relevant facts in this case remain indisputable. In October 2013, Mr. *******/SGM contracted with the Homeowners, representing that they would install 11 impact windows for $17,325.42, in a professional workmanship manner, per Standard Practices, per Permit, and per Code. In November 2013, Mr. *******/SGM obtained a Manatee County Permit representing in detail the requirements for proper installation, which he represented they would, in fact, perform.

It is indisputable that SGM did not perform as promised, as represented in its Building Permit, or as required by Code. Mr. *******/SGM, themselves, have repeatedly admitted that they never completed performance and that substantial remediation is necessary to render the project Code-compliant. See, e.g., Exhibit I, email dated October 19, 2014, Remediation and Repair List.

SGM™s failure to properly perform is also an indisputable matter of public record. See Exhibit II, Manatee County Deficiency Notices dated May 19, 2014; July 3, 2014; and October 7, 2014. SGM™s improper work failed to pass Manatee County inspections"not once, not twice, but on three separate occasions. This is an indisputable matter of public record by County employees properly performing their official duties. The failed inspection reports specifically state, among other things: “Result: FAILED” and “Fail Code: FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CODE.”

SGM was in the home on ten different dates in 2014: two installation days in January 2014; seven, post-installation, punch-list days spanning seven months from January to July; and a full-home inspection in October 2014. During that time span SGM falsely misrepresented to the Homeowners and to Manatee County that it had properly completed its work and that it was ready for final County inspections"the inspections that failed SGM™s work. See Exhibit II.

By August 2014, the Homeowners discovered that they had been deceived and defrauded by SGM™s improper installation and that Mr. *******, SGM™s General Manager and the son of SGM™s owner, had lied about his criminal background. Exhibit III. When SGM™s deception and dishonesty was discovered, and after SGM proved incompetent to complete a promised two-day project in seven months and nine visits, SGM was terminated. Pending recovery of remediation funds, SGM™s improper performance remains in violation of Code, an indisputable matter of public record. See Exhibit II.

III. SGM™s Newly Fabricated False Statement Attempting to Pass Blame to the Window Manufacturer, PGT

SGM has now introduced an entirely new diversionary tactic and is attempting to blame the manufacturer of the windows, PGT, for its own failures. Specifically, SGM asserts the newly fabricated false statement that two emergency-egress windows, already replaced by ********d, were “a correction to a PGT manufacturing issue, not a SGM issue.” SGM continues to refuse to accept accountability. SGM is fully aware that the PGT product is not the subject of this conflict. The issue is SGM™s failure to properly install the windows and its related deception and misrepresentations and resulting damages.
Indeed, SGM™s newly fabricated false statement contradicts its own previous admission that its installation was improper and needs to be re-performed. See, for example, Exhibit I, email dated October 19, 2014, admitting, among other things, that SGM failed to remove and replace the buck strips inside the walls, that SGM damaged the balancers (window components) during the installation, and that SGM damaged the Homeowners™ property during the installation. All of the problems admitted by SGM itself are installation issues and have nothing to do with PGT or its products. Similarly, all three Manatee County failures are based on improper installation, not product defects. See Exhibit II.

SGM™s new fabrication is also internally inconsistent with other statements in its response. At the same time that SGM attempts to “pass the buck” to PGT, SGM claims that the PGT windows, themselves, are perfectly fine to be reused"that SGM merely needs to take them out and re-install them.

IV. SGM™s Admission that Performance Remains Incomplete and That the Windows Need Further Work; SGM™s False Statement That Completion May be Accomplished with Merely “10 Minutes Worth of Work.”

SGM has repeatedly admitted, in both August and October 2014, in writing, that it never completed the contracted-for performance. See, e.g., Exhibit I, Remediation and Repair List. Attorney ******™s previous and current BBB responses also admit that performance remains incomplete.

Nonetheless, SGM falsely implies there is a “quick fix” with its absurd allegation that the project could be completed with “10 minutes worth of work.” If the matter was so simple, and SGM was competent to perform, surely it would have been able to properly complete the installation during its promised two-day installation (January 16-17, 2014) or during not one, or two, or even three, but, seven post-installation visits spanning seven months from January to July 2014.

On the one hand, SGM continues to minimize the damage it has caused and to ignore the substantial remediation necessary as a result. Yet, on the other hand, SGM has repeatedly admitted that the windows need to be removed, the old buck strips removed, new buck strips properly installed, and windows reinstalled, plus caulking, sealing, and re-trimming"essentially re-performing the job from scratch, plus remedying the additional property damage caused by SGM. See Exhibit I, email dated Oct 19, 2014, SGM™s Remediation and Repair List.

Indeed, SGM itself admits that the remediation and repair process will take at least “7 days total” (Exhibit I). SGM™s 7-day estimate is 3.5 times longer than the entire first performance was to take and hardly the mere “10 minutes” stated in SGM™s most-recent response.

IV. SGM™s Repeated Admission That Performance Was Improper and Incomplete and That the Buck Strips Inside the Walls Need to be Replaced

SGM™s response again admits that the buck strips in all windows need to be replaced. See Exhibit I, Oct. 19, 2014, email with SGM™s Remediation and Repair List. This admission should be the end of this case. SGM deceived and defrauded the Homeowners by cutting corners inside the walls"failing to remove old buck strips and install proper buck strips during the first installation"resulting in improper installation, Code violations, and failed County inspections.

SGM itself admitted, on October 19, 2014, a full year after the Contract was executed, that remediation was necessary. Exhibit 1. For example, SGM admitted that it was “prepared to remove and reinstall windows to correct the buck strips in the window openings.” Because the buck strips are inside the walls, this admission means that the entire Contract needs to be re-performed: all old windows removed; old buck strips, inside of the walls, removed; new, correctly sized buck strips installed inside of the walls; new windows reinstalled; interior caulking and re-trimming; and exterior resealing and repainting. None of this remediation would be necessary if SGM had installed the windows properly, per their Permit, and per Code, rather than cut corners and hide the evidence inside the walls"apparently in the hopes that no one would ever find out.

SGM is now suggesting that they cut corners again and just re-use the windows they damaged. SGM admits it was incompetent to install the brand-new PGT windows without damaging them"for example, by denting the balancers (a component of the window) so that the windows do not properly function (open and close). Exhibit I, email dated Oct. 19, 2014. In essence, windows are like teeth: you don™t just extract them and then put them right back after you remodel the gums. It defies reality and expert evaluation for SGM to now claim they can remove the windows they damaged during their first installation, and which do not function properly as a result, then re-install them and they will properly function. Nonetheless, there is a simple resolution to SGM™s absurd claim: the Homeowners are happy to return the damaged windows to SGM after SGM pays the damages necessary to remediate.

V. SGM™s False Statement that it “Was Always Willing” to Properly Perform

SGM™s response falsely states that it “was always willing” to properly perform. The indisputable facts prove otherwise. SGM promised to properly complete the window installation in two days, January 16-17, 2014"it did not. The Homeowners diligently and repeatedly notified SGM of then-known defects. The Homeowners repeatedly provided SGM a total of seven post-installation visits spanning seven months to cure its defects"SGM did not. During that entire timespan, SGM knew it had not properly installed the windows and there were inside-the-wall defects, but it covered them up and apparently hoped its improper work would never be discovered. That is hardly the conduct of one who “was always willing” to properly perform.

Indeed, SGM never displayed any willingness to properly perform until after their dishonesty and deception was discovered by the Homeowners. SGM knew it had cut corners and SGM hid that fact. The Homeowners did not discover SGM™s deception until August 2014, after SGM had seven full months of opportunities to “do the right thing”"SGM did not.

Indeed, SGM still, to this day, fifteen months after contracting and a full year after the promised two-day installation, refuses to “do the right thing.” Rather than be accountable and pay for the damages resulting from their misconduct which are necessary for remediation, SGM has chosen to continue to pay an attorney to try to avoid its inevitable liability.

VI. SGM™s Repeated False Statement that It Would Have Properly Performed if it Was Not “Denied the Opportunity to Complete the Work.”

SGM continues to attempt to avoid accountability by falsely claiming that it was “denied the opportunity to complete the work.” Emails prove that Mr. *******/SGM promised that the installation would take two work days. Mr. *******/SGM in fact scheduled two days to complete the installation of windows, January 16-17, 2014.

For seven full months after January 2014, the Homeowners repeatedly provided Mr. *******/SGM notice of defects and Mr. *******/SGM repeatedly admitted knowledge of such defects. For seven full months, SGM was repeatedly provided opportunities to cure its defects during seven post-installation appointments. Those nine separate visits"for a job that was to be completed in two days"controvert Mr. *******™s and SGM™s false claim that they were “denied the opportunity to complete the work.”

Specifically, SGM has been on the premises on a total of ten different dates spanning ten months: January 16, January 17, February 12, February 19, March 5, April 3, May 7, May 12, July 3, and October 17, 2014. The Homeowners™ appointments with SGM, including SGM™s scheduling of PGT and County inspectors, consumed eighteen days"essentially 3.5 work weeks of the Homeowners™ time"between October 2013 and October 2014.

Ample opportunity was provided to Mr. ******* and SGM to properly perform"until the Homeowners discovered that they had been deceived and defrauded by Mr. ******* and SGM. By August 2014, seven months after SGM promised that its performance would be completed, the Homeowners discovered: (1) SGM did not perform as promised; (2) the windows were not installed per Permit; (3) SGM™s performance failed two County inspections; (4) SGM was grossly negligent, both by installing the windows in violation of Code and in damaging property in their home, as SGM has repeatedly admitted (e.g., Exhibit I); and (5) Mr. ******* had failed to disclose, upon questioning at the time of contracting, that he had previous criminal charges for battery and criminal mischief.

Ironically, but for two emergency-egress windows failing inspection, the Homeowners would never have known the extent of Mr. *******™s and SGM™s Code violations. The lack of emergency egress created an urgent safety issue that the Homeowners were forced to immediately remediate with a new Contractor. That was when the Homeowners discovered the truth about SGM™s in-the-wall Code violations. These in-the-wall violations were not and could not have been known to the Homeowners and were unlikely to be apparent to an inspector absent destructive testing. Indeed, it is unlikely that any Homeowner with lay expertise would ever know they were being deceived and defrauded because they lack expert knowledge and cannot see inside the walls. Significantly, once caught, SGM admitted the Code violations, too.

Had the Homeowners known any of the above in October 2013, they would not have entered the Contract. When the Homeowners discovered the above facts by August 2014, they terminated SGM and hired another contractor to complete the project. Instead of leaving bad enough alone, Mr. *******™s response was to engage in further misconduct by filing a fraudulent lien (Exhibit IV) and slandering the Homeowners™ title"apparently a criminal felony.

Specifically, on August 14, 2014, Mr. ******* filed a fraudulent lien under Chapter 713. See Exhibit IV, Fraudulent Lien. Notably, this was after SGM was given repeated notices of defects and had full knowledge of the deficiencies; after SGM was given repeated opportunities to cure deficiencies, but failed to do so; after the two failed inspections; and after the Homeowners terminated SGM. Further, before filing the lien, Mr. ******* and SGM admitted, in writing, that they had not completed performance. Mr. ******* and SGM nonetheless filed a fraudulent lien on the public record.

In the fraudulent lien, Mr. ******* swore, under oath, to false information on the public record. For example, under oath, Mr. ******* falsely stated the date of the last furnishing and falsely stated the value of the improvements to the property. Exhibit IV. At the time, both Mr. ******* and SGM were fully aware that their work had failed two Manatee County inspections, see Exhibit II. They had also already admitted that performance was not complete and remediation was necessary.

On August 19, 2014, the Homeowners informed ***** and SGM that the lien was fraudulent and to remove it, but they remained obstinate and refused. Instead, well over a month later, on October 1, 2014, *****/SGM again filed another false statement, under oath, falsely stating that there is still a “debt due lienor” and again slandering the Homeowners™ title, reputation, and integrity.

At all times before and after the fraudulent lien and false statements were filed on the public record, both Mr. ******* and SGM were well aware that that performance was never completed and there was no debt due. Mr. *******/SGM either knew or should have known that the lien law, 713 mandates that a contract price “must” be “diminished” by “defects in workmanship or materials or any other breaches of the contract.” Further, Mr. *******/SGM have repeatedly admitted that the work was never completed, substantial remediation is necessary, and the work needs to be re-performed.

It is Attorney ******™s professional obligation to know the applicable law and to refrain from assertions he is fully aware are unwarranted by law. Further, Attorney ****** should be well aware that the Homeowners have no legal obligation to allow Mr. ******* or SGM in their home ever again. Attorney ****** should also know that Mr. ******* and SGM are liable for all damages they have caused. Moreover, Attorney ****** has a professional responsibility not to prolong an indisputable case, which should have been settled long ago, just for his own profit. Yet, Attorney ******™s lack of factual inquiry and assertion of unwarranted legal issues have caused the Homeowners further damage while he profits from attorney™s fees.

The Homeowners have exercised their lawful right to terminate Mr. ******* and SGM and have specifically prohibited Mr. ******* or SGM from entering their property. Indeed, after the Homeowners discovered they were defrauded, it would have been irresponsible for the Homeowners to allow Mr. ******* or SGM any further opportunities to inflict further damage. Imagine being the patient of a doctor who botched a surgery to install a stent in an artery and then tried to cover it up. Would any reasonable person allow that same surgeon to go back in and try to fix their damage, pull out the stent, and then put it back in?

VII. Damages Inflicted by Mr. ******* and SGM

Mr. *******/SGM have already repeatedly admitted they never completed performance, their improper performance must be remediated, that two emergency-egress windows have already had to be remediated, and that SGM damaged the Homeowners™ property. Mr. *******/SGM have been repeated informed that the improperly and dangerously installed windows, along with the security system disabled by SGM, pose a continuing health, safety, and welfare risk. They have also been repeatedly informed that, as a result, the Homeowners are suffering continual and substantial distress.

The Homeowners have repeatedly provided estimates and requested that SGM pay for the damages they caused (e.g., October 21, November 10, and December 13, 2014)"to no avail. Mr. *******™s and SGM™s conduct has forced the Homeowners to pay an attorney to address the fraudulent lien, required the Homeowners to pay $3931.31 to remediate the emergency-egress windows, and will also require the Homeowners to pay an additional $24,987.00 to remediate the remaining windows. The economic damages, however, do not begin to address the ongoing and substantial distress and substantial disruption that Mr. ******* and SGM have caused..

Attorney ****** should be well aware that the Homeowners are entitled to actual damages necessary to receive proper performance as well as to recover attorneys™ fees, costs, punitive damages, and all related damages for Mr. *******™s and SGM™s unlawful misconduct.

VIII. Conclusion

Currently, as of January 2015"well over a year after the October 2013 Contract and a full year after the January 2014 installation"SGM has refused to be responsible for their damage and has left the Homeowners at risk, pending recovery of funds to remediate. Neither Mr. ******* nor SGM has demonstrated empathy, remorse, accountability, or responsibility for the stress, suffering, disruption, and damages they have caused.

SGM continues to refuse to accept responsibility and accountability for its incompetent performance, its fraudulent lien, and resulting damages. Rather, Mr. ******* and SGM continue to pay attorney™s fees rather than to pay for the damages they have caused and the remediation necessitated by their indisputable, and repeatedly admitted, improper performance.

Additional Information

top
BBB file opened: 08/01/1991Business started: 01/01/1974New Owner Date: 08/20/1998
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

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

These agencies may include:

Sarasota County Contractor's License

Sarasota, FL34231
(941) 378-6126

Sarasota County Tax Collector - Business Tax
101 S Washington Blvd
Sarasota, FL34236-6940
(941) 861-8300
http://www.SarasotaTaxCollector.com

Construction Industry Licensing Board
1940 N Monroe St
Tallahassee, FL32399-6506
(850) 487-1395
http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/

BBB records show a license number of SCC131151109 for this company, issued by Sarasota County Contractor's License.

Type: County Construction Lic.

BBB records show a license number of 2300510003830 for this company, issued by Sarasota County Tax Collector - Business Tax. Their web address is http://www.SarasotaTaxCollector.com.

Type: County Business Tax Receipt

BBB records show a license number of SCC131151109 for this company, issued by Construction Industry Licensing Board. Their web address is http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/.

Type: Department of Business and Professional Regulation

Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Charles G. Brigham (Owner)Ms. Noya K. Brigham (Vice President)
Business Category

Glass and Window Companies, Glass, Mirror & Screen Companies, Window Security Laminate Suppliers, Glass – Tempered, Glass - Repair, Windows - Egress, Windows - Vinyl, Window Companies, Windows & Doors - Installation & Service, Storm Windows Doors Suppliers, Hurricane Storm Protection, Shower Door Companies, Window Door Screen Suppliers, Mirror Suppliers, Door Knob Suppliers, Door Hinges Suppliers, Door Window Guard Companies, Beveled, Carved, and Ornamental Glass Companies, Glass Circles Suppliers, Doors - Rolling, Doors - Commercial, Doors - Industrial, Vinyl Doors, Door Installers, Door Companies

Alternate Business Names
CGB of Sarasota, Inc., Sarasota Glass, Mirror, & Auto Glass

Map & Directions

Map & Directions

Address for Sarasota Glass & Mirror

3108 Clark Rd

Sarasota, FL 34231-7308

To | From

LocationsX

1 Locations

Industry Comparison ChartX

The information in the table below represents an industry comparison of businesses which are of the same relative size. This is based on BBB's database of businesses located in West Florida. Businesses may engage in more than one type of business. The percent of time the business engages in a type of business is not accounted for. There is no known industry standard for the number of complaints a business can expect. The volume of business and number of transactions may have a bearing on the number of complaints received by BBB.

*Sarasota Glass & Mirror is in this range.

X

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.

X

BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the company within two business days. The company will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the company's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.

X

BBB began including complaint response text in BBB Business Reviews on October 1, 2012. BBB reports the complaint response text for all reportable complaints against a business that are received electronically.

X

Industry Tips for Glass and Window Companies

X

What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.

X

What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known government actions that are relevant to the business's marketplace dealings with the public.

X

About BBB Business Review Content and Services

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content and services in BBB Business Reviews. The additional content and services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release. Not all enhanced content and services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.

X

Thank you for your feedback.

Help us improve by taking our survey.

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.

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.

X

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.

X

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.