ComplaintsforGround Up Foundation Repair

• Initial Complaint

  04/07/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Can not recommend GUF due to poor customer relations and a careless and almost reckless attitude about work methods and practices. GUF made an unnecessary mess of a slope behind my house. A mess that will cost me over $6000.00 to repair. Ground Up Foundation (GUF) will not hesitate to trash your property (see photos) in order to get in and out asap with the $$,$$$.$$. Previous to the work-start, GUF and I agreed on a certain path that the heavy machinery would use in order to minimize any damage to the property and we also agreed that all the leftover soil would be placed in front of the house, where I wanted it. The first day went as planned and all the equipment was using the path that was agreed upon. Unfortunately, GUF was not aware of the weather forecast and some big sections of they're work caved in due to heavy rain. After this setback the number of workers doubled and it seemed like the A Team had arrived to help clean up the mess. Without any word to me, GUF excavated the hillside behind the house as shown in the picture below. This was done to create a shorter path from the gravel trucks to the work area and to allow GUF to finish it's work faster. GUF let me know that "I" now needed a retaining wall to stabilize the hillside mess that GUF decided to make. I asked how much and received a GUF bid for $12,000. By the way, GUF had already dug up an existing retaining wall which was just railroad ties and only 18" high. Over the following months the hillside developed a huge crack and began to shift so I installed a 3 foot concrete retaining wall at a cost of $5,000. I complained about the slope creeping to GUF and they agreed to come out and regrade the area.... I'm still waiting for this repair. After almost 2 years of haggling with GUF, the hillside behind my house has not recovered from the unapproved excavation that GUF decided to do. The retaining they recommended has also not prevented further slope creep.

  

  Business response

  10/05/2022

  Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2022/04/15) */ Contact Name and Title: ***** ********, President Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX Contact Email: ****@gubinc.net Mr. **********, we are sorry to hear you are not happy with our services. We aim to provide the most excellent customer service and carry our business with high standards. The issues you are having are outside of our scope of work. We have completed your project per the contract that you signed. We have been out to your property several times to address your concerns and at your request GUFR has hired an outside GEOTEK engineer to inspect the project. Repairs the GEOTEK recommended were to complete the MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) wall, backfill as required by wall manufacturer and monitor hill for movement. We have turned the report and repair over to you that stated that the MSE wall was not completed and backfilled correctly. We were contracted to remove a railroad tie retaining wall before we started excavation and you were advised to reinstall another one when we completed the excavation of your project. We were not contracted to install the said retaining wall. The slope was created in order to meet the OSHA rules that require us, when excavating a trench, to remove soils outward 1 1/2 times the depth of the trench for employee safety (OSHA XXXX-XXR-2015). As to your allegations of "trashing" your yard, we did have to change direction of travel for the heavy equipment because the route you wanted us to take went over your septic tank leech fields, and the placement you requested of the extra soil was on your secondary leech field area (you provided the septic system drawing). The owner personally addressed with you his concerns and together you came up with an alternate route for equipment travel and removed soil placement. Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2022/04/19) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Mr. ********, Please allow me to respectfully disagree with GUFR statements (in quotation) offered in your response: 1. "The issues you are having are outside of our scope of work." I disagree. GUFR made a prior agreement to use a route for heavy equipment around the septic field area. Your dig, your problem and scope. 2. "We have completed your project per the contract that you signed." I disagree. GUFR decided to deviate from the agreed route and instead GUFR carelessly regraded a steep and well established slope behind the house. 3. "at your request GUFR has hired an outside GEOTEK engineer to inspect the project." I disagree. On March 2, 2022 a GUFR representative, Mr. ***** *****, observed the slope damage and advised that I "do nothing". On March 11 I received a follow up email from Mr. ***** stating "Observing the situation the powers to be do not think it wise to disturb in any way the existing position of the hill." In response to this email I urged GUFR to consider hiring an outside engineer. "Do nothing" is absent from the GEOTEK report. 4."Repairs the GEOTEK recommended were to complete the MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) wall, backfill as required by wall manufacturer and monitor hill for movement." This recommendation is understood to be "best practices". However, the GEOTEK report does not explain the cause of the large crack and slope creep in the slope that was regraded by GUFR. During his evaluation the GEOTEK engineer commented to me that, while performing the final regrading of the slope, GUFR may not have properly compacted the slope in 6" lifts. This is a primary area of my concern but was not addressed in the GEOTEK report. 5. "We have turned the report and repair over to you that stated that the MSE wall was not completed and backfilled correctly." I disagree. The new MSE wall, as installed, exceeds the height and mass of the railroad tie retaining wall that was removed by GUFR. A deck will be re-installed to the back of the house and the extra height of the MSE retaining wall was a cosmetic decision. 6. "The slope was created in order to meet the OSHA rules that require us, when excavating a trench, to remove soils outward 1 1/2 times the depth of the trench for employee safety (OSHA XXXX-XXR-2015)." Understood. However, this requirement does not relieve GUFR from any liability for long term damage to my property. 7. "As to your allegations of "trashing" your yard, we did have to change direction of travel for the heavy equipment because the route you wanted us to take went over your septic tank leech fields," I disagree. This change in direction was not necessary and was not discussed with me in advance. It was explained to me after the slope was regraded and I assumed that GUFR understood the implications of its actions. It is my opinion that the change in direction direction of travel was made to expedite the progress of the work, which had fallen behind due to a collapse of the first days excavations due to heavy rains. 8. "and the placement you requested of the extra soil was on your secondary leech field area (you provided the septic system drawing). The owner personally addressed with you his concerns and together you came up with an alternate route for equipment travel and removed soil placement." I disagree. On the first day of GUFR work I spoke with the site leader who's name was *****. The owner was not present on the day GUFR began work. ***** and I agreed that the extra soil would be dumped on the slope in front and east of the house. It is my opinion that the change in placement of soil was made to expedite the progress of the work, which had fallen behind due to a collapse of the first days excavations due to heavy rains. Respectfully, ******* ********** Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2022/10/05) */ We are continuing to work on resolving this issue.

*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. ↩