GRG Contracting, LLC

"When the homeowner first contacted me regarding the door replacement, I went to the property that same day to inspect the project and take measurements. I provided a quote to remove and replace the existing door, which the homeowner agreed to. At that time, the homeowner explained that the project was urgent because the existing door and frame were cracked, creating a security concern at his rental property. I informed him that, due to the short timeline, our options would be limited to doors that were currently in stock, and that the replacement would likely not match the existing door in color or appearance. The homeowner stated that the color and style were not important and that his priority was simply getting the door replaced that week. We verbally agreed to install a primed white Menards/Mastercraft door. I then asked the homeowner how he intended to pay for the project, as we needed to execute a contract before moving forward. He informed me that the tenant would actually be responsible for payment and provided the tenant’s contact information so that I could coordinate payment and contract execution directly with them. I did so, and the contract was signed by the tenant. The contract specifically states that our scope of work was to: “Remove and replace front door and frame, including proper insulation, caulking, permit, and disposal of old door. Not including paint.” The same day, we obtained the required permit from the City of Dayton, we installed the new door. On the next day, I returned to complete minor finish work by filling nail holes and repairing a couple of small cosmetic splinters with wood filler. The city inspection was completed and passed that same day, prior to my cosmetic fixes. After the installation was completed, I began receiving multiple threatening phone calls and text messages from the homeowner expressing dissatisfaction with the finished product. He claimed that the door was cracked, damaged, and otherwise defective. These claims are simply untrue. The door successfully passed the required city inspection, which would not have occurred if there had been any structural or installation deficiencies. The only issues present were minor cosmetic imperfections, which had already been repaired. Although our contract and payment agreement were with the tenant—not the homeowner—I still made every reasonable effort to resolve his concerns professionally. I offered to paint the door for a small additional charge, since painting was specifically excluded from the scope of work in the signed contract. Rather than discussing the matter constructively, I was yelled at and subjected to profanity over the phone for the better part of 15 minutes. The only resolution the homeowner stated he would accept was for us to completely remove and replace the entire door because of a small splinter and cosmetic deficiencies. I could not agree to that request, as the cosmetic issues had already been repaired, and applying paint would have resulted in a perfectly finished product. After it became clear that I could not reach a resolution with the homeowner, I contacted the tenant—the party with whom we actually had a signed contract—and requested that payment be submitted by the agreed-upon due date, as our contractual obligations had been fully completed. The tenant complied and submitted payment without issue. At no point did we have a contract with the homeowner, the one filing the complaint herein, nor did the homeowner make any payment to us. Therefore, we will not be issuing the refund that the homeowner has requested. For reference, I have attached a copy of the signed contract with the tenant, which documents the agreed-upon scope of work and confirms the contractual relationship."