borg
The site should be inspected before it was poured.
But you can't tell it is done and it was in the contract as DaneM's responsibility... they signed and accepted that. What could have been done is another story...
Browse Forums Introductions Re: Re Burbank homes 34Jan 04, 2009 9:22 am DaneM ECO classic Please be objective!!! It is obvious from you replys that you have spoken to Burbank. I am not saying what I am saying because I have spoken to Burbank... I have spoken before Christmas, but not about any specifics as I did not have any details the last time I spoke, and now they are on leave. What I am doing here is listing the facts. If these are incorrect let me know here. DaneM ] What you are saying is from a point of view of someone in the industry.. who knows a little bit about what they are doing... the average person who builds a house, will be their first timeand will rely totally on the builder to EXPLAIN the contract they are asking US to sign... You did not have to sign... I emphasise to anyone reading this, DO NOT SIGN WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. But you did sign and asked how you could ensure that the sewer was capped and you got advised to talk to your service provider, Yarra Valley, which you did, but YV it appears did not act in accordance with their words. DaneM The way it is written in the TENDER is ambigious and not clear at all-which is why I asked TEnder presenter to explain it to us.... Just think if she had of taken 15 seconds to explain to what to do, all of this would have been avoided and I would be possibly telling everyone on this forum how GOOD they were... instead here we are.... anything that is written in a Tender/contract, becomes the responsibility of the company to explain in full what each clause means...I would have thought that was obvious Your issue is capping the sewer and I think you fully understood at the time that it was not in the contract as Burbank's responsibility to cap the sewer and that is why you spoke to YV for them to resolve that. What you did not understand was the implications and consequences if this did not happen - and unfortunately the cost was $60,000. What does your legal advice say? Ed Re: BURBANK HOMES 35Jan 04, 2009 9:27 am Mrs B Now, legally Burbank may be right that it is not their fault because it is in the contract that it was the homeowners responsibilty, but instead of having a satisfied customer, they now have a customer who has lost financially, very distressed and here on this forum. Mrs B Yes and that is how I see it too... $60,000 is a lot of money for an iundividual and it's also a lot for a company to reimburse when they may not be at fault. (even when at fault some companies would make this hard). Ed Re: BURBANK HOMES 36Jan 04, 2009 11:15 am Afternoon folks.
Just on a side note here, does anyone else find it a little peculiar that Burbank Homes would even consider discussing the specifics of DaneM's job with someone other than DaneM or an authorised representative? It just seems like there may be a few privacy issues here if Burbank are willing to discuss a clients personal information with someone other than the client. I can see that Ed (EcoClassic) is offering a means to get the communication channels open here -between Burbank and DaneM- but, really it is DaneM's duty to do this and Burbank should not be discussing his job with just any John Doe. DaneM, I hope you find a satisfactory resolution to you sewer saga soon. Re: BURBANK HOMES 37Jan 04, 2009 11:22 am IkonInteriors Afternoon folks. Just on a side note here, does anyone else find it a little peculiar that Burbank Homes would even consider discussing the specifics of DaneM's job with someone other than DaneM or an authorised representative? It just seems like there may be a few privacy issues here if Burbank are willing to discuss a clients personal information with someone other than the client. I can see that Ed (EcoClassic) is offering a means to get the communication channels open here -between Burbank and DaneM- but, really it is DaneM's duty to do this and Burbank should not be discussing his job with just any John Doe. DaneM, I hope you find a satisfactory resolution to you sewer saga soon. If you follow earlier posts you will find that I asked DaneM's permission, and I have it. On the other hand it would appear to be OK to defame without permission. Ed Re: BURBANK HOMES 38Jan 04, 2009 11:49 pm EcoClassic Hi DaneM I supply Burbank and I know them well, I have offered more than once on Homeone to speak to Burbank on your behalf. Not hearing from you, I took it upon myself to speak to them anyway and their story is different to yours. Ed hmmm ..... doesn't sound like permission to me! I have been a member of this forum for well over twelve months now and an observer for much longer. During this time I have never seen such a staunch defence of a builder from a third party as what you have shown Ed. Do you mind if I ask you why are you so interested in Dane's issues with Burbank? Certainly, I for one, believe he has a genuine reason for feeling aggrieved - who wouldn't if you had to pay an extra $60k for someone else's mistake. If he is aiming the blame in the wrong direction is that not his problem? At the end of the day, as you have rightfully pointed out on many occasions, it was in his contract and therefore he probably has no recourse for legal remedy. However he does have a right to be angry because, rightly or wrongly, he trusted them with the building 'stuff' and they failed him. I was also, until now, totally oblivious to this requirement (as were several other forumites) and, as such, I am grateful that the issue was raised; who knows it may even save someone else's hide! 'We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.' - Winston Churchill Re: BURBANK HOMES 39Jan 05, 2009 12:46 am DaneM My husband has written a PM to "ED"so probably will not say anymore on this subject Enigma, I think you would find it here... Fair point though. --- I think the insight ed has given us here is good, I also think the he presents an unusual opportunity to contact some builders higher up the chain and that can only be a good thing. I personally dont see what is being said by ed as a defence but more as "the other side of the fence" and I think staunch is a bit harsh The fact that he has even bothered to look at this thread and bring it to the attention of the builder I think we should be grateful for and if there is an outcome or better resolution for Danem ... great! Re: BURBANK HOMES 40Jan 05, 2009 7:49 am Enigma....Firstly, I believe that DaneM is actually a girl!
And I too was quite gobsmacked in Ed's attitude towards her story. How many other threads have I read recently where members tell of their issues with builders/tradesmen/individual companies...and do so without persecution from others? COUNTLESS. Ed, correct me if I am wrong, but DaneM discussed having issues ( bad ones ) right throughout her build, from a poor SS to a disinterested Building Manager - her issue with this build went beyond the initial sewer capping fiasco. She appears to be well placed to give feedback on this company. Also, I find it staggering that a builder would discuss any aspect of a build or a contract with someone other than the person that contract was with, regardless of whether or not you told them you had permission! Not terribly "honourable". I would be horrified if my builder discussed my build with any Tom, **** or Harry....just because they ( rightly or wrongly ) said that they had my permission. And it isn't possible to defame the builder if her story is factual and accurate. For want of a better word, the whole situation "STINKS". Cut the lady some slack! |