Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  07/03/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  As pres. of Hickory Hghts Condo. No. 1, III Bros was hired to perform snow removal svcs during 2021-2022. Private property areas of the condo were damaged during snow removal services. E-Mails provided as follows:03-17-22. III Bros contacted along with pictures of damaged areas. Response "Got It."04-17-22. III Bros. again contacted to seek their services. No Response. Hickory Hgts. discussed the matter with the crew chief who created the damage, he took it upon himself to seed the damaged areas.05-09-22. Informed III Bros that the seeding on the east side did not take and requested two pieces of sod - no response.05-15-22. Seeking a response re: damaged area and again requesting sod. No response.06-17-22. Hickory Hills Ordinance Officer reviewed the damaged private property and placed two calls to III Bros. No Response.06-20-22. Seeking resolution of damaged area with sod. Reminded III Bros that they were paid $1,350 and only requesting two pieces of sod to resolve the damaged area. No response.06-20-22. Police report filed re: damage to private property. III Bros informed. No Response.06-20-22. III Bros reminded that for the past 3 years, my condo gave up 2 parking spaces for them to use to store snow.The irony is that Hickory Hgts and III Bros. had a previous business relationship for several years & thru lack of poor customer service and communication, the relationship deteriorated. In fact, Hickory Hgts was responsible for recommending III Bros to four other condos in the areas, and over the years the relationships failed. III Bros blames Hickory Heights because they fail to take responsibility for their own actions and failures.

  

  Business response

  07/07/2022

  This complaint relates to a customer that we no longer desired to work with due to excessive aggravation over the nearly 20 years we did business together. We finally separated at the beginning of the 2021 season and were contacted by the customer to provide snow services for ********* due to what would be complications of having multiple contactors working on the layout of their property as 4 differently owned and managed buildings share a large parking lot area. We agreed and provided snow services. Minor and common lawn damages were incurred. We acknowledged receipt of the damage photos emailed by the customer and per our policy, top-dressed these areas with black dirt and seeded in the early spring which is the end of our obligation. It is the customers responsibility to water and tend to the seed as it establishes. This is the same process we perform every year at every property. At a later visit to another building on the general property that we provide service to, our crew leader AGAIN seeded due to the customer following him around and harassing him which that act itself went beyond what our standard turf repair process and policy is. The customer contacted us on 05/23/22 asking if we would be interested in resuming their maintenance services and we politely declined the following day. After years of obnoxious nagging, silly demands, and general aggravation we were happy to part ways and only agreed to snow services as it made it easier on everyone, us included, given the layout of the property and neighboring building on said property.  Despite all of this, the customer repeatedly sent emails of the same photos from March 2022, even though repairs had been made, and was demanding sod work despite it not being our policy and we outright did not want to contract any more work with the customer. The parking blocks are 30 years old and are crumbling. They were displaced by the snowplow and straightened out when the snow melted. Turf areas were seeded with the appropriate material at the appropriate time of the year. The customer emphasizes that parking spaces were "given up to us" as if this was a gift or special service provided to us. The property is tight and overcrowded with nowhere to store snow, and we suggested that for the safety of the residents and better efficiency in snow clearing that it would be best to allocate a minimum amount of parking spaces for snow storage. This is something that many of our properties do as it is a common sense practice. To summarize, our company was contracted and paid for snow services which we provided with the same quality we always provide and as such had no complaints or slip/fall accidents during the winter months. We repaired common turf damage as we always have and always do. We clearly made our desire not to work with this customer anymore and do not wish to have any contact with this customer. The situation speaks for itself... police reports and code enforcement were called to the property over seeded areas that did not fully take due to the customers lack of care, and ***** arguments such as "we need to mow approximately 2 more inches in a particular direction based on where these properties lot lines are in an open grass area." Even the code enforcement and police officers has shrugged their shoulders and advised us to just not interact with her.  We did everything we were contractually obligated to do for this customer, and in one instance did more than that, so this is not a negative reflection on our organization or business practices but rather a customer's bitter actions in response to our company not wanting to do business with, communicate with, or have any professional or personal ties to. 

  Customer response

  07/11/2022

   
  Complaint: 17518084
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Sincerely,
  ***********************

  Customer response

  07/12/2022

   
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Pursuant to Complaint No. ********, Hickory ********************* No. 1, rejects the July 11, 2022 response provided by III ****. Landscaping as follows:

  1.      By fax on March 17, 2021, Hickory Heights informed III **** Landscaping that the 2021 landscaping contract be marked Null and Void.  I cancelled III **** Landscaping and not the other way around as stated in their rebuttal.

  2.      Hickory Heights Condo spoke with the crew chief of III **** Landscaping in April 2022 and without authorization from the owner of III ****. took it upon himself to seed the damaged area he caused during the snow removal services he performed.  ******** chief informed Hickory Heights Condo that since he caused the damage, he would seed the area.  The damaged area was SEEDED ONCE AND NOT TWICE AS STATED by III ****. Landscaping.

  3.      Harassment of the crew chief did not take place.  Any subsequent interaction between Hickory Heights Condo and the crew chief was to inquire if he had the sod to place in the damaged area in order to improve the area.  These inquiries between Hickory Heights Condo and the crew chief took place since the owner of III ****. Landscaping would not respond to the several inquiries placed by Hickory Heights Condo.  Again, there was no harassment merely seeking a courteous response from the owner of III ****. Landscaping  none received.

  4.      While it is recognized that seeding of damaged areas following snow removal services is the policy of III ****. Landscaping, when seeding doesnt work then, BY EXCEPTION, the request by Hickory Heights Condo seeking TWO PIECES OF SOD should have been Approved.

  5.      Police Report and an Ordinance infraction was filed with III **** Landscaping there was no shrugging of shoulders in fact, as previously stated, following the viewing of the damaged area by the Ordinance Officer of Hickory Hills, two calls were placed to the owner of III **** Landscaping, again with no courteous return calls to the Ordinance Officer.

  6.      III **** Landscapings snow removal services were fired from a building in the development making it difficult for III **** Landscaping to store their snow.  Hickory Heights Condo  BY EXCEPTION  provided snow removal storage.  This storage allowed III ****. Landscaping to perform their services with optimum results for the remaining buildings.

  7.      Clearly there is no resolve on the part of III **** Landscaping.  Any postings concerning the inadequacies of the business practices of III **** is requested.

   

  Hickory ******************************** No. 1

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

  
  

  

  Business response

  07/19/2022

  Pursuant to the response of Complaint No. ********, III Bros Landscaping would like to clarify its original response and respond to Hickory ********************* No. 1s enumerated response.
  1. The former customer is correct, we did not mean to imply in any way that we cancelled the business relationship between our company and the property and retract our previous statement. To clarify, this complaint relates to a former client that we no longer wish to do business with. Relations were terminated by the client in 2021. We were then contacted by the client and agreed to provide snow services which at the time seemed to benefit all parties involved, both our company and the four separate legal entities that exist within the development. After snow services were finished we were contacted by the former client via email on 05/23/22 and asked to provide a quote for 2022 services which we politely declined.
  2. We spoke with the crew chief and we had misunderstood the situation. The former customer is correct, we did only apply seed one time. However, the assertion that this was done without authorization is completely unfounded as we previously stated, it is the company policy to seed any snow plowing damages once the winter services are finished, usually when we perform the spring clean up for the property. It is also important to note that the crew chief was specifically given permission to do this work even though we were not contracted for 2022 services and no spring clean up was being performed on the property in question. Furthermore, what is also important to note is our initial misunderstanding of whether it was seeded once or twice, and that misunderstanding is that the crew chief stated that he seeded more than just the area that was damaged from the snow plowing. This extra seeding was relatively minimal, but is still a cost absorbed by our company both in manhours and material. Again, minimal but worth noting at this point.
  3. The subsequent interactions is the harassment we are referring to. We did the work we were contracted to do, we performed our companys policy to remedy any incidental and minor turf damages by topdressing and seeding, and we no longer are contracted by the property and therefore do not work for the property. Stopping our crews while they are working at an adjacent property to talk to them slows them down, decreases their efficiency, and ultimately costs our company money.
  4. It is clearly stated by the former customer that our company policy regarding seeding is recognized. Germination of turf seeds is not a it works or it doesnt situation and our company performs this seeding at an appropriate time of the year with the appropriate material. If proper care isnt taken or environmental conditions are such that the seed does not take it, that is not a reflection of the work performed. There was and is no exception to be made in that instance, particularly with a client we are no longer in a business relationship with.
  5. We never received any formal citation or notice of an ordinance infraction from the Village of ************* or the *******************************, nor are we even aware of what ordinance this would be in reference to. The aforementioned crew chief was our only witness and summarized his conversation with an officer the day the police were called over turfgrass by saying He kind of shrugged his shoulders, like he didnt know what to make of what was going on. We never returned the calls to the ordinance officer who called because we knew exactly why the officer was calling and that was to ask us to do what we could to remedy the situation so that they can get the former client of ours off of their backs and essentially shift the situation onto our company. Had that not been the case, it is only logical that a more detailed message would have been left addressing the particular citation and police report information and what our company would be legally required to do in response to said report and citation, and since that was not the case it is fair to assume that the complaint was frivolous in the eyes of the Village and law and/or code enforcement officers and offered no merit to pursue on their time.
  6. III Bros Landscaping was fired from one of the four separately managed properties that share a large paved lot in this development, this is true. However, the snow does not belong to III Bros Landscaping so it is not ours and our service of plowing the lot is for benefit of the property and its residents. If a property was poorly designed for the plowing and moving of snow in its development, a professional snowplow operator can only fully perform his job to the capacity of which there is available space to move the snow to while not creating winter driving hazards. Given that this is the case for the parking lot layout at this shared development, it was gracious for parking spaces to be allocated for snow storage but only for the benefit of its residents to receive the most optimal results in their snow plowing. I dont see what the issue is here.
  7. There is no resolve required in our opinion for this matter, nor does there seem to be one requested by the former customer.

  Customer response

  07/20/2022

  Complaint: ******** - July 20, 2022
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  In years past, Hickory Heights Condo., No. 1 and III ***** Landscaping had contractual relationships for several years.  During those contractual years, Hickory Heights Condo continued to request III ***** Landscaping of their need to improve communications and customer service. Finally, at the end of the contractual relationship dated November 9, 2020, I discussed a grassy area that was assigned to their care with the crew chief concerning why this grassy area had turned ***** when the rest of the areas were green.  ******** chief took a picture and sent it to the owner of III ***** Landscap8ng.  Since there was no response from the owner, an e-mail was sent to the owner of III ***** on November 11, 2020 (copy of e-mail can be provided upon request) seeking his expert opinion.  NO RESPONSE RECEIVED.  III ***** was not invited back for the following landscaping year.  The owner of III ***** wants his money, but services are not on his agenda nor properly provided.

  1. Hickory Heights Condo did, in fact, request a landscaping contract in May 2022, but had second thoughts in view of the poor business ethics and informed III ***** Landscaping of the decision to decline any future landscaping contracts between the two companies.  Hickory Heights Condo refused to deal with any future contractual relationships.

  2. Since the III Bros Landscaping preferred method to repair damaged areas following snow removals was seeking -- the proper procedure would be to rake or add top soil, spread the grass seed, cover with erosion control and water the seed (watering the responsibility of Hickory Heights).  The procedure, as explained, was not performed.  Proper seeking of the damaged area following snow removal was done ONCE and the seeding did not take; therefore, Hickory Heights Condo, BY EXCEPTION, is requesting SOD.

  3. Any interaction between Hickory Heights Condo and the crew chief was between 2-3 minutes and did not interfere with their services with another account.  The description provided by III ***** is completely false and exaggerated.

  4. However III ***** labels it, you damage the property -- you repair the property.  At the time the damage occurred, there was a contract between the two companies, so it is incumbent that the damage be corrected to the satisfaction of the client.  The client, Hickory Heights Condo, gave III ***** the opportunity to repair the damaged area -- it didn't work.  Plan B needs to be initiated, namely, Sod.  An Ordinance Officer visited the damaged area with Hickory Heights Condo on June 17, 2022 under Incident No. 22-04080.  Subsequently, the Ordinance Officer placed two voice mail messages to the owner of III Bros concerning his viewing of the damaged area.  NO RESPONSE FROM THE ***** OF III BROS. LANDSCAPING TO THE ORDINANCE OFFICER.  Incident Report can be provided upon request.

  5. When III ***** was fired from one of the buildings of the development, the snow removal services became extremely difficult for III ***** Hickory Heights Condo came to their rescue and came up with a plan for III ***** to perform their services to support the remaining buildings.  This rescue plan was brought to the attention of the owner of III ***** since the owner did not have a plan or clue of how to adequately perform the services that were needed. Hickory Heights Condo gave up two parking spaces to give III ***** an area to store their snow. All Hickory Heights Condo received was damage and grief.

  6. THIS HE SAID, SHE SAID resolve to this complaint is not working.  Therefore, Hickory Heights Condo. is requesting that the damaged grassy areas be repaired with Sod and that this repair be accomplished immediately upon receipt of this rebuttal.  HICKORY HEIGHTS CONDO DESERVES AND EARNED THE RIGHT TO REPAIR THE **** WITH SOD.

  7. Finally, since March 2022 when this complaint began, it is clear that the owner of III Bros Landscaping commissioned someone on his staff to provide pictures of the damaged areas to the owner of IIII ***** and the response was two words "GOT IT."  It took a complaint to the Better Business Bureau to get III ***** Landscaping to act responsibly and show that they understand proper business practice and the need for appropriate customer service.  III ***** ********************** needs to close out this complaint and provide Sod to the damaged grassy area immediately upon receipt of this communication.

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

  President and Managing Agent

  Hickory Heights Condo., Unit 1

*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. ↩