PHOTOS IN PROFILE
After discovering my review (of 2 years ago), the company posted an O'Reilly-esque harangue worthy of the Bush diaries, giving themselves 5 stars to boot. Sadly, Yelp removed the post. Since the best defense against libel is truth, I've added a few more fact checks and a bonus section for my fellow Yelpers...PHOTOS within my profile. These photos show what they considered an acceptable finished product.
The company has claimed repeatedly I was elated when work was done.That everything was perfect. And that I *suddenly* refused to pay. FACT: Multiple issues were noted during construction and pointed out early on. I was told not to worry and let things resume with assurances that "Everything is fixable. We'll tear it down and start over if we have to".
When construction ended, no surprise- the issues were not only still there, but now compounded. Rather that acknowledge the defects, the owner did his best to minimize them..and when pressed, now expected ME to make concessions for which repairs should be done. Like the crooked fence line featured in one of the photos- a problem they were never really able to explain away, other than to accuse me of requesting. ??
Though true they were willing to perform some repairs, it always came down to which ones were most cost feasible for them. And when they grew hostile, I got a lawyer.
My attorney's role was too draft an agreement that would have addressed the repairs needed, along with a warranty stipulation, while ensuring the company would be paid in full once repairs were done. Harris refused to agree to the terms. So instead, they whipped up a lawsuit. I countered.
For those of you not familiar with small claims, a quick run down: Judges have ZERO power to do anything more than award money from one party to another. In other words, they cannot order someone to return an item or perform an action. In my case, and because I counter-sued for complete removal of the fence and my money to be returned, the judge could not vie in my favor. She instead used a formula which calculated defects vs. actual fencing material. In the end, she acknowledged the defects, proclaiming "The court doubts anyone would ask for a fence to be installed crooked, or without gates. Those posts don't even line up".
In the end, the judge reduced the award Harris sought by nearly 70%. In other words, 30% of what they asked for.
In the end, they were quite pleased to walk off with $4k of my hard earned dollars, and nil accountability for the mess they left behind. And while that ruling easily could have been appealed, frankly- any chance at that point of them being ordered back for corrective work was absolutely not worth it. It took a skilled contractor to fix that mess. Looks great now, no credit to them.
Harris has repeatedly contended my hidden nefarious "objectives" of trying to get something for free. A statement that's become a playbook favorite of theirs...yet also demonstrative of more groundless logic. Considering they collected nearly $4k from me and failed to finish a job they were contracted to do, if my intent was indeed what they claim- then having the ENTIRE project torn down and reconstructed by another company, paying a second time in the process, should nullify that utter nonsense.
Enjoy the photos, Yelpers. read more