ComplaintsforMarsh Fence & Deck

• Initial Complaint

  08/26/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I contracted with Marsh Fence & Deck in February 2023 to replace an existing deck at my home. I was verbally told upon first meeting that no building permit was required as I was replacing an existing deck. This is a false statement that their contractor's license requires them to know, thus all work was done without a required permit. Soon after deck completion, a substantial water leak to interior of home was discovered. Upon inspection it was found that Marsh violated building codes and industry standards by not install water-resistant barriers, flashing or caulking at deck to structure locations thus causing the current leak that will lead to future mold and dry rot issues at that site as well as several others around the structure. Further code violations were also noted for support beam structures at raised deck causing possible structural integrity issues. Marsh offered only to remove one deck board and apply some caulking. Marsh continues to refuse to actually correct the code violations though their contract specifically states that they guarantee their work to meet "industry standards" (building codes).Marsh Fence & Deck committed several departures from Acceptable Trade Standards and Building Codes resulting in significant health and safety concerns, violated Statutes pertaining to requisite Building Permits, committed contract fraud by attempting to change original contract wording pertaining to guarantee of workmanship and permit requirements and committed breach of contract by not performing work to Industry Standards as stated in their contract.I am seeking a remedy from Marsh Fence & Deck to pay to have their building deficiencies corrected, and the appropriate Building Permits obtained.

  

  Business response

  09/13/2023

  DEAR BBB,
  
  
  ON MARCH 1ST, 2023 MARSH FENCE & **** COMPLETED A REPLACEMENT **** JOB AT ****************************************************** FOR OUR CUSTOMER **********************  
  THE PROPOSAL WAS SENT TO ***** ON FEBRUARY 10TH, 2023, AND WAS SIGNED AND APPROVED BY HER ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023. PLEASE FIND A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL ATTACHED BELOW FOR REFERENCE. 

  
  THE **** WAS REPLACED LIKE FOR LIKE WITH ALL NEW MATERIALS. THE OLD **** DID NOT HAVE Z METAL FLASHING OR ANY WATERPROOF MATERIALS. ***** WAS VERY HAPPY WITH THE END RESULT AND PAID HER INVOICE BALANCE ON MARCH 23, 2023. SHE EVEN CONATCTED US TO COME BACK OUT AND DO TWO GATES AT HER HOME THE FOLLOWING MONTH.          
  ON MAY 23RD, ***** CONTACTED OUR OFFICE BY AN ONLINE REQUEST, WHICH IS ATTACHED BELOW FOR REFERENCE.  SHE ASKED IF WE CAN SEND SOMEONE OUT TO TAKE A LOOK *********** AS SHE HAD RECENTLY POWER-WASHED HER **** AND WINDOWS AND THERE WAS WATER DRIPPING DOWN. WE SENT OUR PROJECT MANAGER ***** OUT ON JUNE 5TH TO MEET WITH HER TO INSPECT THE ISSUE. ***** EXPLAINED TO OUR PROJECT MANAGER THAT SHE HAD RECENTLY POWER-WASHED THE **** AND WINDOWS AND THERE WAS WATER COMING INTO THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR BELOW THE ****. OUR PROJECT MANAGER WROTE UP A WORK ORDER TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BY ADDING ******** TO THE LEDGER BOARDS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO HOUSE. SEE THE ATTACHED WORK ORDER FOR REFERENCE. 
  ON JUNE 6TH, ***** EMAILED OUR OFFICE SAYING SHE WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE ***** TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE PROBLEM AND GET HIS OPINION. **** MARSH (***** OF MARSH FENCE)  CALLED ***** A FEW DAYS LATER, BUT ***** DID NOT ANSWER, SO **** LEFT HER A VOICEMAIL STATING THAT THE WORK ORDER THAT OUR PROJECT MANAGER WROTE UP WAS THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION AND WOULD FIX THE ISSUE AT HAND. 

  
  ON JULY 13TH, ***** EMAILED THE OFFICE ASKING FOR ***** EMAIL ADDRESS, IN WHICH WE SENT IT TO HER. ON JULY 13TH, **** MARSH RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM ********************* HER EXPRESSING HER CONCERNS ABOUT THE CAULKING REPAIR NOT BEING SUFFICIENT. ***** REQUESTED FOR MARSH FENCE TO ADD FLASHING, WATERPROOF BARRIERS, AND FIX ANY STUCCO WORK ON HER HOUSE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE AT MARSH FENCES OWN EXPENSE.
  ON JULY 25TH, **** MARSH RESPONDED TO SUSANS EMAIL STATING THAT ****** PROPOSAL/SIGNED CONTRACT DOES NOT STATE THAT WE WOULD BE DOING ANY OF THOSE ITEMS (WATERPROOFING, FLASHING, STUCCO WORK, ETC.), AND IF THAT IS SOMETHING SHE WANTED DONE THAT IS AT HER OWN EXPENSE, NOT MARSH FENCES EXPENSE. THIS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL SO THERE IS NO REASON FOR HER TO ASSUME OR DEMAND THAT THIS SHOULD FALL ON US TO PAY FOR. WE BUILT HER **** LIKE FOR LIKE, THERE WAS NO WATERPROOFING OR FLASHING ON HER OLD ****. IN REGARD TO STUCCO WORK, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING MARSH FENCE HAS EVER DONE IN 40 YEARS NOR IS CAPABLE OF DOING AS IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN OUR SCOPE OF WORK. 

  
  ON JULY 30TH, ***** EMAILED AND REQUESTED FOR **** TO COME OUT TO HER PROPERTY AND MEET WITH HER AND ANOTHER CONTRACTOR WHOM SHE HAS DONE WORK WITH IN THE PAST. WE SET UP A MEETING FOR **** AND OUR PROJECT MANAGER ***** TO MEET ***** AND HER OTHER CONTRACTOR ON AUGUST 16TH. AT THEIR MEETING THEY WENT OVER THE ISSUES ONCE AGAIN AND **** REASSURED HER AGAIN THAT ******** WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM. ****** OTHER CONTRACTOR **** AGREED WITH **** THAT THIS WAS A SOLUTION. ***** WAS STILL NOT HAPPY AND DEMANDED WE DO IT HER WAY OR NO WAY. SHE THREATENED THAT IF WE DIDNT DO IT HER WAY, THEN WE COULD EXPECT TO HEAR FROM HER ATTORNEY AND TOLD US TO LEAVE HER PROPERTY. WE HAVE ALSO SPOKEN TO MANY OF OUR FRIENDS WHO OWN FENCE & **** COMPANIES IN THE **** AND THEY ALSO AGREED THIS IS THE SAME SOLUTION THEY WOULD OFFER. 

  
  WE ARE NOW RECEIVING THIS LETTER FROM CSLB THAT ***** HAS FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST US.  WE GAVE HER A SOLUTION BUT SHE IS NOT WILLING TO EVEN GIVE IT A TRY. WE OFFER A 10-YEAR GUARANTEE ON CRAFTSMNSHIP WHICH IS STATED IN HER PROPOSAL. WE EXPLAINED TO HER IF SHE HAS ANY ISSUES AFTER THE CAUKING IS DONE THAT WE WILL COME BACK OUT AND FIND ANOTHER SOLUTION, BUT SHE IS NOT EVEN WILLING TO LET US TRY THIS OPTION FIRST. 
  WE ARE NOT SURE WHERE TO GO FROM HERE. AS MENTIONED, WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY OUR SOLUTION FIRST AND IF THERE IS STILL A LEAK WE WILL COME UP WITH ANOTHER SOLUTION. PLEASE CONTACT US TO DISCUSS NEXT STEPS. 

  THIS CUSTOMER ALSO CONTACTED THE CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD AND WE ARE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE DIRECTLY WITH THEM TO GET THIS RESOLVED. 
  
  

  SINCERELY,

  
  ***** MARSH
  MARSH FENCE & **** CO.
  HR & CUSTOMER RELATIONS MANAGER 
  

  
  

  Customer response

  09/18/2023

   
  Complaint: 20526135
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  All of Marshs statements and responses are mere deflections to attempt to obfuscate and detract from the real issue at hand here.  The water leak that I am currently experiencing is merely a symptom of the larger overarching problem Marsh Fence has and continues to violate Contract Law, Construction Law and CA Building Code and permit requirements in several very significant, concerning and harmful ways involving health and safety concerns and must be held accountable to bring this project into Code compliance.  There proposed solution to remove a single deck board and apply some caulking is merely an inadequate and imprudent attempt to cover up and detract attention from the large scale Code violations that Marsh has effected in this deck construction. 

  Due to **** Marshs continued insistence and abruptly ended our last meeting by stating that he is unwilling to discuss any other possible solutions than his one board caulking idea, I have indeed been forced to file a complaint against Marsh Fence with the CA Contractors Licensing Board.  This is the agency that is responsible for issuing contractors licenses in ********** and also the agency that monitors and disciplines those contractors who do not abide by Contract Law, CA Building Codes, Business  and Profession Code and Industry Standards, all of which Marsh Fence has done. 
  

  The major points in my complaint to the ********************* are:
   Significant Public Health Concern and Departure from Acceptable Trade Standards (absence of water resistant barriers)
  Significant Public Safety Concern and Departure from Acceptable Trade Standards (inadequate/non-code connectors on support beams)
   Disregard and Violation of Statutes pertaining to requisite Building Permit (verbally told owner  permit not required)
  Contract Fraud (attempt to change contract wording re: permits and quality guarantee after contract signed)
  Breach of Contract (did not honor guarantee to build to Industry Standards)
  

  As Marshs response is now public record, I am compelled to respond and offer a few points of honestly/clarity in regards to ***** Marshs stated response
  -Deck being replaced like for like and old deck not having Z metal flashing or any waterproofing material.  This is merely a deflection as the condition of the old deck is entirely irrelevant.  I contracted with Marsh Fence to tear down an old deck and build a new deck which, they being the building experts, I had to trust would build to todays permit and Building Code standards as is the law.  Their own contract provides a guarantee that they cover any defects in workmanship performed by Marsh fence in accordance with Industry Standards thus guaranteeing that they will perform all work to CA Building Code.  CA Building Code is quite specific about how water protective barriers and flashing are to be applied to all deck to building junctures so as to prevent water from entering the structure and causing water damage.
  -Water did in fact first pour into the inside of my home through the lower sliding glass door after the deck was power washed, and then again when I was merely washing the above deck windows using a garden hose to rinse.  They fail to mention that I reenacted the water leak for their project manager, *****, so that he could see for himself that the leak was very substantial with water pouring into the inside of my home through the exterior wall due to lack of code required water resistant barriers.  They also fail to mention that I additionally offered to reenact the leak for **** Marsh (owner) upon our August 16 meeting, but he declined that offer.  My initial request was for Marsh to fix their error of omission by adding the missing water resistant barriers to fix the current lea ********* addition to addressing some other Code violations causing severe safety concerns that I became aware of) and bring the work up to requisite Code.
  -Marshs statement that proposal/signed contract does not state that we would be doing any of those items (waterproofing, flashing, stucco work, etc.) and that since it is not included in the proposal there is no reason for her to assume or demand that this should fall on us to pay for is entirely misleading and another attempt to obfuscate the real problem.  The contract also does not include a listing of every nail, s**** and fastener that Marsh will use in building the deck.  It is inherent in the finished work product that these items are included, as is the case for the requisite water resistant barriers.  Additionally, when Marshs contract specifically states that they guarantee they will do their work to Industry Standards it cements their guarantee that water resistant barriers are to be incorporated in the finished deck as prescribed by ******** Building Code which is Industry Standard.
  -****** recalling of the August 16th meeting that she did not even attend is extremely fanciful and highly inaccurate.  Myself and two other witnesses who actually did attend the meeting and notes I am attaching that I wrote immediately following the meeting so that I did not forget what actually transpired - will attest to a more factual accounting of what was said by all parties who actually were at the meeting
  -Independent Contractor who did attend meeting did NOT agree with ***** proposed solution to remove a single deck board and apply some caulking.
  -I did at NO TIME DEMAND anything, and certainly not that Marsh do things my way or no way.
  -I never THREATENED anyone if they didnt do things my way
  -I NEVER told anyone to leave my property.

  The above are all TOTALLY inflammatory and TOTALLY fabricated statements by a person who did not even attend the meeting.  My request for the meeting was an attempt to calmly and rationally negotiate a mutually agreeable solution, providing Marsh with the opportunity to correct their mistakes/omissions.  **** Marshs continued insistence during the meeting that the one board caulking solution was all he was willing to offer as that was how they always conducted their business, his resistance to hear or discuss any other possible solutions posed by independent contractor, and his final declaration that there was no use in talking any further as he was not budging from the one board caulking proposal, and then abruptly getting up and walking out of the meeting stating that is the end of it and that I should do what I need to do, is what ended the meeting. (see attached notes for more detail) 
  

  ********************************************

*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. ↩