Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Coal Creek Landscaping LLC

Phone: (970) 568-3807 Fax: (970) 568-7438 6932 NE Frontage Rd, Wellington, CO 80549

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Coal Creek Landscaping LLC 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 the rating for Coal Creek Landscaping 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 | 0 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 1
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 0
Total Closed Complaints 1

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Coal Creek Landscaping LLC
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: March 03, 2006 Business started: 01/01/1997 Business started locally: 01/01/1997 Business incorporated 03/22/2004 in CO
Type of Entity

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

Business Management
Ms. Agnes Wich, Owner/Manager
Contact Information
Principal: Ms. Agnes Wich, Owner/Manager
Business Category

Landscape Contractors Sprinkler Companies Irrigation Systems & Equipment

Industry Tips
How to Hire Landscape Pro Tips for Hiring a Lawn Irrigation Installation Contractor

Additional Locations

  • 6932 NE Frontage Rd

    Wellington, CO 80549 (970) 568-3807


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.

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)

8/15/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: False billing. The company offered a free estimate to evaluate replacing sprinkler heads. They did this and then charged me $50 and claimed it was to turn on my sprinklers. The person who turned them on, previously replaced my back flow pipe as it was broken.. about a $300 job. About 4 months later for a shut-down, I asked him if he was going to bill me... he stated he forgot, I got the bill the next week. Then I has my sprinklers evaluated and was charged for a turn on. The owner states she just can't fathom why the person would lie about it. Obviously there is a track record of forgetting things and absent mindedness that is happening. Thus, I was coerced into paying $50 for a turn on that was not done by this company.

Desired Settlement: refund.

Business Response: Our company is pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this complaint. Regarding the complaint for our failure to bill until "4 months later" for a replacement of his "backflow pipe": Our computer records indicate that on May 20th of 2011 we replaced (2) ball valves on the backflow at his residence. On June 4th, 2011 we replaced (3) solenoids. We billed and mailed the invoice for these services on June 10th of 2011. (Please see submitted documentation). The cost for both services totaled $323.00. We received payment for these services on August 6th, 2011 with a mailed check, signed by this client that was dated May 20th, however, was not postmarked until August 3rd, 2011. This was noted in the computer. On June 7th, 2011, he was having trouble setting his timer, and we went to his residence and helped him reset the timer at no charge, because it was a simple and quick fix. No other repair work has been done for this client, except for a 'bonnet and poppet' replacement done at the Oct. 2009 blow-out (a freeze break). The only other work we have done for him is our annual sprinkler spring start-ups and fall blow-outs, but no other repairs. We never repaired his backflow "pipe" as described. What work we did do, referenced in his complaint, was billed out within 20 days of the initial date of service. I believe that this customer may be confusing us with an entirely different company that he may have hired to do some work, and who may have possibly not billed him for "several months" as he stated. It was not our company. Regarding the complaint of being charged for a "free estimate", our phone call-log, dated April 24, 2012 records a call from this customer specifically requesting a spring sprinkler start-up. It should be noted that we have done sprinkler start-ups and fall blow-outs for this client every year since 2007 (see attached documentation), with the exception of 2010, when we did only the fall blow-out. So, he has been a long-time client. Our phone log stated that he would like the "start-up asap", and then would also like to move forward with the job for which he received a written estimate in 2011, for the replacement/upgrade of several sprinkler heads. At that time (2011) he decided to wait on doing the project. However, on April 24th, 2012, he stated, per our phone log, he now wanted to do this work in the next few weeks, ideally, the next week, or the following week. On April 26th we called him and specifically told him we would be coming to do his sprinkler start-up that day. He gave us specific instructions about when everyone (he, his wife, and nanny) would be there. We also told him that we would review the estimate we gave him for the work (heads) he wanted done to see if any pricing needed to be updated since it had been a year since we gave it to him. (We did review the estimate - in the once (not on the site) - and revised the total cost. There were no changes to the work to be done, only the pricing. Basically it was the same estimate as before, to do the same work (changing out the same number of heads), and we all knew that. We included the updated estimate and pricing in the mailing with our June 10th billing. On April 26th two members of our crew (including our irrigation manager) went to do the sprinkler start-up. As it turns out, the backflow testing company had been there either that same day or the day before to do the backflow testing (a completely different process). In order to do that, the tester turns on the water to the backflow only. He left only one water valve open from the basement (per the tester in our phone conversation) and did not start-up or check any other part of the system. Our employees did the start-up as usual, which includes setting all valves correctly and turning on the water to the system, checking each head and zone individually, and adjusting any heads, if needed, checking valves, checking for leaks, changing out the battery, and setting the timer to appropriate watering times, everything that is typically done - All while this client worked on his car in the driveway. One employee communicated with the other by radio, as he moved the timer through each zone (from the timer in the basement), while the employee outside checked each zone. This is a sprinkler start-up. After we mailed the bill to the client for this service - just as we had done the last 7 years, he called after hours and said he refused to pay because the system had already been started up by the backflow tester. I then spoke with the back flow tester, and our employee as well. The tester said he did not do anything but turn the water on to the backflow so he could do the annual backflow test required by the town. He said he shut all valves but one when he left. Our employee states that he specifically remembers doing the start-up as usual and going through all steps. Since he had already evaluated the system for the estimate in 2011, he did not re-evaluate the system again. Nothing had changed - it was not something that was needed (and had not been requested). This client simply had said he was ready to go forward with the work. I called the client and left a message explaining all the above. He returned the call (again after hours) on June 19th, 2012, stating he had misunderstood, and agreed with my explanation, thanked me for the clarification, and said he would send a check. He never sent a check. We tried to collect on the invoice for several months. We sent letters with detailed explanations (see attached) and offered payment plans. We received no response what so ever. We finally charged 2 finance charges over the months. He finally called (after hours) on March 28, 2013, to say he did not owe the money because we did nothing, and that the testing service had "turned his water on", and he had in fact offered to pay the tester $40 extra dollars for doing so, however, the tester refused it. Our company followed up with a letter, which reminded him that he had called us for a start-up, had never cancelled the start-up, and we had indeed done the work of starting up and checking his system. We offered to drop the finance charges, if he would simply send payment for the service. He did finally pay for both the service and the finance charge, and hand wrote a message to us on the same letter, stating that if our explanation written in our letter (please see submitted letters), was correct, then he did indeed owe the bill. We had assumed from the beginning that he just did not understand what a backflow tester does, and what a sprinkler start-up is (and the difference between the two) so I explained it in detail, believing he was confused and just didn't know about sprinkler systems. As we had previously offered, after receiving a check for the full amount, including finance charges, we immediately mailed a check to him for the cost of the finance fees. We mailed the check on April 22, and he contacted the BBB on Friday, April 26th, and our check to him cleared our bank on Monday, April 29th. The case was closed, but he again contacted the BBB on May 13th. As you can see from the submitted letter, the statements in his complaint, in my opinion, twisted my actual comments and took them out of the actual context in which they were written. My final conclusion is that this client is confused, and that because quite a bit of time had passed, did not remember the chronology of events. Our company, however, does have all phone calls, letters and scheduled service calls documented and in writing. We find it unfortunate that even though we had no contact or response from this client for months regarding the several invoices and statements sent to him (after he had agreed in his phone message it was a bill he owed), and this client refused to pay this bill for 10 months after the service, and we refunded $50.00 worth of finance fees, just as a courtesy, when he finally paid, he still wishes to say that we charged him for services we did not provide, and that we charged him for a "free estimate". All documentation, as well as interviews with both the backflow tester and our employees, show otherwise. (Please see details in submitted documentation). This client twice agreed with our explanations and twice agreed that he owed the money and agreed to pay. In the end, it becomes a matter of principle. We felt we were fair and patient. We simply billed him for a service provided, as we had every year since 2007. As a courtesy, and unasked, we refunded the $50.00 of finance fees, even after 10 months of non-payment, and 9 mo. of no response to our phone calls and statements, for his annual spring start-up. He was never charged for an estimate, in 2011 or 2012, as he stated in his complaint. Because this client had agreed to, and did, pay for the invoice and finance fees, we feel our company has already compromised by returning the full total of finance fees in exchange for payment of services provided. Thank you, ***** **** Coal Creek Landscaping, LLC

Consumer Response: (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The April 26th estimate they cite as being done "in their office" is the precise instance they are claiming was the start up.

They were to do an estimate only, and I was told they would need to come out to do this.

They somehow mistaken this, and have decided that they can not possible be wrong.

To enforce their assertion, they harrassed and threatened credit-reporting action as a coercive measure.

As stated previously, June 10th was not billed because their worker, the worker they claim "Why would he lie" Which he is not, he forgot,... forgot. I asked him if I would be billed for that repair/service. It wasn't until then that I was billed. See their May 20th listing. It wasn't until June that I had informed their worker that I had not been billed for this, and then they adjusted this. This is the same worked that obviously had a mix up after the Back-Flow adjuster TURNED ON MY WATER. Once this was done, this company showed up to do a 2 MINUTE TEST of each zone to assess sprinkler heads.

Thus, I was told I would get another estimate, was given the estimate and assessment, and was billed for a turn on that was done by another company. Then, I was coerced into payment under threat of bad credit reporting.

Business Response: After reviewing this client's most recent comments to the submission of our company's detailed response and detailed documentation of the issues he refers to, it seems even clearer to us, now, that this client is absolutely confused about each incident.
In reference to his response, this client states that the estimate (which included only a pricing revision in our business office), was dated the "precise instance" of the dated start-up. He fails to note, or notice, that our phone log specifically stated (as submitted and referenced previously) that he wanted a "sprinkler start-up as soon as possible", AND, would "also like to move forward on getting the work done that was estimated the previous year." We called him on April 26th to tell him we were specifically coming to do his sprinkler start-up, just as we had done for several years. For this client to say or imply that he did not request a sprinkler start-up is simply not true. We also mentioned that we would have to "revise" the quote because it was a year old. We did not state that we were physically coming to do a new estimate. Again, there would have been no reason to do so, as nothing had changed. Both the previous and revised estimates were to simply replace his current heads with the same number of new (updated) heads. Once again the only thing that changed was the pricing. Both our phone log and our schedule support this. The phone log is typically written word for word on what the client says in the phone call or phone message.
We never did an estimate for this client on April 26th (so never "cited an estimate done on April 26th" as he stated). The revised estimate is dated May 10th, 2012. The original estimate is dated May 26th, 2011. Perhaps he is confusing this date (from the old estimate in 2011) with the date of the start up in 2012 which was April 26, 2012. Far from, as he states, the "precise instant" of the 2012 start-up. Moreover, we believe we called him on May 10th, 2012 to give him the revised bid information, and when we did so, he said at that time that he would hold off again on the project, and we noted this on our estimate copy. We later sent the invoice for the start-up only.
As noted by our employees, when we went to do the start-up on April 26th, the client was in the driveway washing or working on his car. We are not sure how he believes to know exactly what our employees did, as he was not in the basement or in the backyard when they ran through and checked each zone, head, and valve, or checked and set the timer.

We were extremely patient in waiting for payment, especially since he had been a long time customer. After receiving his message on June 19th, in which he stated he was sending a check - we waited until July 24th before sending another statement. We called on August 29th and left a message, simply to request payment, believing he had forgotten to send it. On Sept 12th we again called, leaving a message, and asked for payment, and stated that if he could send it within 10 days he would avoid a $25.00 finance fee, which we typically charge after a bill is 30 days overdue. (It had now been 4 mo. since his first invoice.) 
We did not receive a single response to any of our phone messages or mailed statements. On Nov. 27th, five months after our first invoice, we assessed the first $25.00 finance fee, and sent a new statement, but still offered to withdraw the finance fee if payment was received within 10 days. We received no response.
On March 26th,, 2013, we sent a letter stating that because he had been a long time customer, we had not sent the bill to collections, however, we did need to collect on this long overdue balance. We stated that we had assessed one more finance fee, but once again, we stated we would be willing to drop both finance fees if payment was received for the original amount within 10 days from the date of the letter. Only then, more than 9 months after the original invoice, did we also finally state that if we received no response we would proceed to submit the invoice to collections.
On March 28th, after hours, this client finally left a message (our first contact from him in 9 and one half months), that he refused to pay the bill, stating we had not done a sprinkler start-up for him. We replied with another detailed letter of explanation, to which he later agreed he owed the money. Each time we offered to drop the finance fees if payment was received. He was contacted a very limited number of times (perhaps 3-4) by phone over a period of a year, where we always left a message. He never responded to our calls or mailed billings. For him to say he was harassed and threatened is simply, again, not true. Quite the reverse - we feel we bent over backwards to be patient and accommodate him, giving him every opportunity to pay for the services provided, and offering, even up to a year later, to drop all finance charges.
In reference to what he perceives as "forgetting" in regard to our billing. It is absolutely within the norm of our company for any client to receive an invoice 2 weeks to 1 month after the date of service. It is not unusual to have more than one service call on a particular billing. The months of May and June are two of our busiest months, and because of that, as mentioned previously, invoicing will be done up to a month after the service call. It is not a matter of "forgetting", and our service tech is not the one who creates and mails the computer invoices. So, even if he 'forgot', the office has a record of all service calls. To receive an invoice 20 days after a service call is normal and acceptable for most companies.
All of this documentation was previously provided. It appears that this client did not read it thoroughly, because, had he read it, we believe he would see the error in his statements.
Our company did not fail to provide the requested service for this client. All documentation and interviews with those involved show this. We continue to believe that this client is very confused, in spite of all of our efforts to clarify the issues. While we feel our company did nothing wrong in any of our interactions with this client, he seems intent on getting his money back. Even though he offered to pay us twice, finally did pay us (12 months after the documented service), and we have already reimbursed him - unasked - for his finance fees, he has now decided to request reimbursement for the service we provided and legitimately charged for. As well, he continues in his pursuit to discredit our company for no justifiable reason.
While our company feels very firmly and absolutely that there is no liability or wrong doing on our company's part in our dealings with this client - we recognize that because it is a minimal amount of money, because this money seems extremely important to this individual, and because our company's final determination is that this client is simply extremely confused, our company will accommodate his request and send reimbursement for services provided.

Coal Creek Landscaping, LLC

Consumer Response: This business refuses to acknowledge their wrongdoing.

I request the $50 they scammed me out of.

My statements stand.

The amount of time they have wasted in being right rather than admitting their fault is a testament to the ignorance of their intention.

Business Response:
In reference to this client's most recent comments of June 25th, our company actually feels the exact reverse of his statements is true. Our previous statements stand as well. When a company is maliciously and slanderously attacked in a public forum for no justified or legitimate reason, a company has every right and need to respond in defense even though that response may be time consuming. This client called and requested service work which we provided. He agreed twice to pay the bill, and finally paid - but not for 12 months after the documented date of the service work. He then decided to file a complaint stating we charged for work which he did not request. Our company made every effort to negotiate and work with him on this bill, even refunding all finance and interest fees. Our company has always treated every client honestly, fairly and with respect, including this particular client, even though that courtesy was not returned by him. And, our company will continue to do so in the future, because fair pricing, quality workmanship, and customer satisfaction will always be our priority. The $50.00 was placed in the mail prior to his posted comment, but apparently had not yet been received by the date of his posting. The money was refunded simply as a courtesy and because this money seemed extremely important to him, and because we continue to feel this client is confused. The refund given does not imply any wrongdoing on the part of our company. - Coal Creek Landscaping, LLC