ComplaintsforG-Cat Construction Co.

• Initial Complaint

  05/26/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Date of original transaction - July of 2020 Total price paid for entire scope of work was $7,650 Scope of work included a concrete service walk, front of house sidewalks and a concrete slab.The portion of the job that is of concern for us is the concrete slab. The sidewalks appear to be fine. However, the concrete slab started to crack within 2 weeks of install. In fact, the contractor GCAT agreed to redo the slab, however the outcome was exactly the same the second time around.I have been in constant communication with the contractor and they have physically inspected the crack only to say each time that it is not structural in nature. The horizontal crack is now a full blown crack that continues to expand in both length and width. However, the contractor still feels it is a hairline crack and refuses to take any action or even acknowledge that the crack is bigger. In April of 2022 I contacted our local City Hall and asked if an inspection of the slab could be performed. It is at that point that I learned that the contractor had never paid for the required permits. The city advised that the permits needed to be paid prior to any inspection taking place. GCAT did pay for the permit in April of 2022. In May of 2022 an inspection of the slab was performed and the city subsequently disapproved the slab. I notified GCAT but rather than working with us to replace the slab the contractor hired an architect to attest to the soundness of the slab & essentially reverse the disapproval issued by the City. We only learned about the architect after the city had reversed the disapproval.The architect based his attestation on information the contractor shared about how the work was performed, a physical inspection was never performed. I am including pictures of the slab and crack, a copy of the original contract with GCAT, a copy of the Architects letter and the documents that GCAT provided to the architect.

  

  Business response

  06/14/2022

  ************* did hire us to remove & replace her front stoop & service walk.  It was completed in 2020.  We used all proper reinforcement & poured the new stoop on top of her existing foundation.  Unfortunately a crack in the stoop did form.  Our contract does state that we only warrant against structural cracks in which she did accept & signed the agreement.  Out of good faith we removed & replaced her stoop free of charge.  We did have her sign another contract stating she understood we could not guarantee exact color match or any possible cracking.  We also explained how adding control joints can help control random cracking but because of the look she decided against adding the control joint.  Again she signed the contract & agreed to move forward.  We did add all the proper reinforcement & thickness of concrete.  It was very unfortunate that another crack formed in the stoop.  We did correspond back & forth with the homeowner & explained that we can not replace it for the 2nd time free of charge.  Concrete can crack due to shrinkage.  Once a crack starts, it will continue until it reaches the end of the section.  I also explained how we did already replace it for her even though our contract did not require us to.  I am very confident this stoop is structurally sound, that is why we provided ************* an architectural letter & a passed final inspection from the Village.  It is our top priority to give each of our customers the best quality & customer service that we can.  I understand the frustration with the look of the crack but ************* agreed to both our contracts and understood that we could not guarantee a crack will not form again.  It seems unreasonable to expect a company to continually give free services and ignore a contract for this issue.  Her project did turn out beautiful as a whole.  The stamp texture & color is absolutely gorgeous.  In ***************** attachment it does show her second contract that she agreed to but I also attached page 2 which explains our warranty.  At this point I do not think we can provide any finished product that would please *************.  I was more than happy to take the financial loss to try to please her but I believe it is best to part ways at this point.  

  Customer response

  06/15/2022

   
  Complaint: 17260774
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  
  

  GCAT has poured our stoop a total of 2 times.  Each time the stoop has cracked in the exact same place within a few days (not weeks, months, or years).  The crack is significant and has continued to grow in width and length. In fact, when the city of Elgin first inspected the stoop in May of this year, the stoop work was NOT approved.  The inspector noted that while concrete does expand and contract, this crack was unusually large and right down the center of the stoop which was concerning.  I advised GCAT of the inspectors disapproved work.   GCAT (without any notification to me) hired an Architect to write a letter of determination that was subsequently provided to the *************.  As a result of the letter of determination, the city of Elgin approved the stoop.

  
  

  GCAT only advised me via email of the architect after the letter was provided to the city of Elgin.  (Email copy attached + copies of what GCAT sent in email which are labeled **** Final)

  
  

  Upon learning of the architect I reached out to the architect to better understand how they reached their determination (email communication attached).  I learned that the architect never performed a physical inspection of the stoop but rather based his determination on materials provided by GCAT.  In fact, his letter only states (in a roundabout way) that if GCAT did what they said, then the stoop is good.

  
  

  The architect goes on to advise me that if I am still concerned with the structural soundness of the stoop, I should look at the original foundation that the stoop was built on.  This is the very same foundation that the architect noted in his letter as being structurally adequate.  The architect also noted in his email that his letter to the city of Elgin could have been clearer, as the foundation he referenced in the letter is the original foundation and not meant to represent work completed by GCAT.  

  
  

  The architects letter also refers to rebar.  I shared pictures with the architect that demonstrate no rebar was used.  He did not provide comment on the rebar.

  
  

  • I have filed a complaint with the State of ******** **************************************************** with respect to the architect hired by GCAT.  It is our belief that the Architect did not perform adequate  due diligence to verify the soundness of the stoop.  The architects letter is the only reason the city of Elgin approved the stoop.
  •  Part or the contractual agreement with GCAT included that they would secure the appropriate permits to complete this work.  Please note that the permits were paid for until April of this year.  Well after the work was performed.
  • GCAT states rebar was used, but pictures tell a different story.  I have shared the pictures with GCAT but they have ignored them.  

  
  

  As I requested previously we are requesting that GCAT either replace the stoop with the appropriate rebar and foundation or be willing to absorb the cost if another contractor provides the service.  I am willing to give GCAT the opportunity to do whats right and perform the work again as that would be a more affordable option on their end.

    
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

  

  Business response

  06/22/2022

  We have had multiple conversation & emails back and forth with this customer.   We never ignored her & have always been responsive to her.  Concrete can crack & that is the reality.  It was explained that we would do our best to minimize the possibilities.  We never in anyway shape or form claimed that it would not crack.  As she mentioned, we asked her to sign the second contract.  We did this to reiterate what she agreed to on the first contract that we did not guarantee against cracking.  I do also want to point out that after the second crack formed & we did assure she it was structurally sound she moved forward on having an overhang structure built on the stoop from another contractor.  This type of project must have been permitted as well & our stoop obviously looked like a strong base to build this on top of.  In regards to the permit, we had passed the final inspection.  Somehow she was able to convince the inspector to reverse the passed inspection.  The inspector did request a letter from an architect stating if the install was executed the way I claimed he would pass it for being structurally sound.  The Village does not require an inspection prior to pouring the concrete & we did everything above & beyond code.  It is true that the crack grew in length from when it first started.  A crack does not stop until it reaches the end of a section.  It is not true the crack is getting wider, in order for it to get wider that means the ****** is sliding off the foundation which it is not.  Our company can not do anymore work at ***************** property since our verbal discussions & written contracts do not stand with her.  We are very sorry and wish her & her family the best.

  Customer response

  06/22/2022

   
  Complaint: 17260774
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  

  
  **** continues to state that they took every measure to try and prevent a crack in the concrete.  However, they have not acknowledged that Rebar was not used in the construction of our stoop.  In fact, when I provided **** with photos of the construction process that demonstrate rebar was not used, they did not respond to our inquiry.  That said, they did have the architect confirm that rebar was used.

  As for the permit process, I have attached screen shots from the City of Elgin site, which is a public site.  **** is well aware of why there were multiple inspections although there was only one permit.  The screen shot tells the story will however, here is a recap:

  The first inspection was performed in April of this year. As you can see from the screen shot and the notes from the inspector, it was for the service walk and sidewalk. There is not mention of the stoop. In fact, the inspector did not realize initially that the stoop was part of the scope of work that **** had provided.
  I did bring to the City of Elgins attention that the scope of the **** work did in fact include a stoop. When the city reviewed the original permit application submitted by ****, they acknowledged that the inspector had missed that the stoop was part of the inspection. As such, a second inspection was scheduled.
  During the stoop inspection, the inspector did note that concrete can crack but found that the crack in our stoop was quite extensive and unusual for new concrete. He provided a disapproval.

  
  To be 100% clear, the city only reversed their disapproval because of the letter that ***** architect submitted. And as **** noted in their recent response to us and the BBB, the letter from the Architect is simply stating that if **** did in fact perform the work as stated in the letter, then the stoop should be sound. The Architect never inspected the stoop. In addition, when I asked the architect to review the pictures that demonstrate the absence of rebar, he did not reply.
  When I demonstrated the pictures to **** that demonstrate no rebar was used, they have not addressed that point.
  The crack is wider and the pictures prove it.

  
  Please note that I also welcome ***** comments about the additional work that we did following ***** guarantee that the crack was not structural nor should I expect it to expand. We did move forward with the second stage of this project because it was a hairline crack at the time. **** assured us that we should not be concerned.
  The contractor that built the overhang did have his architectural plans approved. Please note that the foundation/stoop is still the responsibility of **** & that the second contractor assumed the foundation was stable based on what **** said they did.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩