ComplaintsforTracy's Quality Painting

• Initial Complaint

  03/30/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Unresolved

  More info

  This is regarding unethical business practices and scare tactics that forced ** into paying for unauthorized services. We hired ******* to remodel our house. The billing was unethical and highly problematic. After it appeared that the project was becoming much more expensive than originally planned, we told them we had to have a cap on costs and work beyond our cap must be pre-approved. Billing was done by a new point person without experience or resources to provide us with proper information. When the project was nearly finished, they told ** to allot for no more than $20,000 additional dollars for a buffer beyond our most recent budget, which we paid. ************ then sent ** additional bills for approximately $6,000 and $14,000. This made no sense: they were sent after the project completed and after telling ** very nearly everything had already been paid. Their point person told ** the project was not as profitable as they hoped, and we suspect that is why we received these bills. In sum, after we had been told in writing we needed to account for at most $20,000 additional dollars beyond our cap, we were surprise billed for another $20,000. We spoke to the project leads, reminding them that we repeatedly told them that any work beyond the cap had to be approved, but no additional tasks requiring additional costs were ever communicated. We would not have authorized any additional work. The project leads could not negotiate with ** without approval from the owner, *****, who was not involved in the project. We spoke with ***** in March. Instead of having a conversation, ***** expressly told ** that he would not speak with **, except to tell ** that he has a lot of money and he will use it all to make ** pay, including all of his attorneys' fees. This was harassing and threatening. Rather than litigate, we paid everything he demanded. These unethical scare tactics of threatening litigation rather than recognizing improper billing must be addressed.

  Business response

  04/09/2023

  Please see attached file for response. 

  Customer response

  04/24/2023

   
  Complaint: 19874086
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  *****, the owner, aggressively told us that "he has so much money and will use it all to *** us and get ** to pay".  Rather than taking accountability and having a civil discussion about errors his company made, this was how he "stepped in to resolve the is***".  We never threatened not to pay the amount he demanded; rather, we were attempting to have a resolution of the amount they claimed we owed that was in keeping with our agreement. We hoped to negotiate like civil adults and come to a resolution that made sense for both sides.  But, Tracys hostile and threatening response precluded such a result.  We hope that no future customers have to endure this treatment and after seeing many negative posts about this owner and his ethics, we feel it is important that we share the experience.
  
  As the company acknowledged in its response, the primary is*** was that a cost cap was established which was given to ** by the point person in writing and was considerably over the original estimate to allow for changes to subcontractor costs.  We also communicated in writing that any costs exceeding the cap needed to be communicated to **.  This occurred with less than one month remaining on an extensive project, not at the beginning when the cited 15-20% cost flex would be appropriate. The fact that there was zero communication about cost that would exceed the cap and expecting payment for those charges could only be explained as unethical practices or inexperience.  While the point person worked hard, and was pleasant to work with, by his admission this was his first project in his role and he did not have the experience to provide accurate billing.  If he had the power to negotiate an appropriate resolution, it seems like he would have done so, but we were stonewalled by the owner who just threatened litigation without so much as a conversation.  There was a failure to track costs accurately which led to lower than expected profit for them and ultimately surprise billing to **.
  
  Since the owner was the only one who had the authority to resolve the is***, appropriate handling would have been for him to discuss and acknowledge that they charged ** for work that we did not agree to.  The problem amounted to $20,000 in dispute and an acceptable resolution would be to refund at least half this amount.

  
  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. ↩