Complaint Review: MORGAN COMPANY - Texas

Susan Daniel filed 3 reports against the Morgan Company.  Two in one day.  The rebuttal below has been posted after each report.  To summarize, her complaint was arbitrated at the request of the Morgan Company through the BBB in which we are members.  We continue to have an A+ rating after the arbitration.  The arbitrator found that Ms. Daniel’s complaints and demands were not supported by the evidence presented.

The Morgan Company entered into a contract agreement for remodeling the home in Southlake of the person filing this complaint.  After the down payment, the contract specified an amount due when the permit was issued.  The homeowner refused to pay that installment.  She breached the contract.  She came back to the Morgan Company to remodel her home, and a second contract was entered into and work began on her home.  When the next installment was due, the homeowner refused to pay again.  Work ceased. 

The Morgan Company asked the BBB for arbitration as the homeowner refused to abide by the contract and resolution could not be attained without third party intervention.

It is important to note that the BBB Case Number listed in this complaint, #91377462, is not a real case number.  The BBB Case Number is #91355998. 

As with Ripoff, the homeowner attempted to file multiple complaints with the BBB.  Case Number 91358361 was determined by the BBB to be a duplicate complaint and was dismissed as such.

Arbitration of case #91355998 was completed on October 13, 2016.  The BBB found that the Morgan Company completed the majority of work contracted to do and was compensated to the point of work completed.  Under the heading of "Reasons for Decision", the arbitrator wrote, "The Customer did breach the contract on at least two occasions but continued to retain and depend on the Company to complete the work."

Below is the transcribed report in its entirety verbatim, from the BBB.

Case Discussion:  The case heard is first and foremost a case of breach of contract.  Susan Olukoga Daniel hired the Morgan Company to construct a second story to her home.  The addition was to consist of a bedroom bath and closet to be constructed as a second level to the existing structure.

The original contract is a one page contract with a work proposal, including a general breakdown of the work to be performed, as well as a payment structure shown as a percentage of the total contract sum of $60,000.

The original contract was presented to the homeowner on October 4, 2015, was initialed and signed by both parties.  The contract called for an initial payment of 10% or $6000.00 upon signing of the contract. 

Morgan Company (the contractor) received the contract, drew up the plans and presented the plans to secure a building permit.  The building permit was issued on November 11,2015.  The contract called for an additional payment of 30% or $18,000 upon issuance of the permit.  No additional payment was received.  Without such payment, Morgan Companies did not begin work on the Daniel addition. 

It appears no work, other than presenting the plans for approval and securing a building permit, had been done when on December 17, 2015, sent a notarized letter to Morgan Companies advising them that she was cancelling the contract affective 12-17-15.  She further advised that Morgan Companies could retain the original $6000 paid as a down payment.

It appears no additional work was performed and contact was minimal from this date until April 27, 2016 when an additional $18,000 was paid.  On May 16, 2016, a second contract, in the amount of $63,350.00, was agreed upon by the parties and an additional draw of $25,460 was to be paid.  Morgan companies received payment of$18,000 on June 18, 2016 with the additional amount owing of $7,460.00.  It was at this point that work actually began and on the addition.

After the initial framing and plumbing was completed and the bathtub was installed, Ms. Daniel requested a work order change to allow for a larger tub.  Neither of the parties presented evidence of a supplemental or revised work order and a second tub was ordered and purchased by Ms. Daniel.  The second tub was too large, requiring reframing of the bathroom and closet area.  At about this time the work stopped due to a wiring related problem that the Morgan Companies state was related to cable wiring which was not related to work he (the company) was performing.

The Morgan Companies state that due to several delays with lack of payment, reframing of a portion of the new addition and delays in delivery of a 3rd bathtub, several of the sub-contractors had moved onto other jobs and work came to a standstill.  As of 6-26-16, Morgan Companies had received $49,000 of the $63,350 owed by the terms of the second contract. (77% of total contract)

It is difficult to accurately estimate how much of the total work to be done had been completed on this date.  Ms. Daniel states the contractor has completed about 50% of Phase I of the construction.  Since it appears framing, electrical and much of the plumbing had been completed, 77% does not appear to be overstated.  

Hearing Inspection:  No on-site inspection was completed but both parties provided copies of contract, e-mails and photos of the work at the time of the hearing.

Arbitrator's Decision:  Both parties were quite adamant as to their respective positions and the outcome they would like to see.  

The customer feels that the Company failed to complete phase 1 of the project correctly and only completed 20% of the remainder of the project.  She requests the company refund her $38,000 for work not finished or completed incorrectly.  

The company states that the contract had specific actions that were to be taken with payments to be made after steps were completed.  The Company feels the Customer did not fulfill the contract, causing delays to the project and, on occasion, bringing the project to a halt.  The Company requests the Customer pay and additional $10,315,23 to cover additional work completed and for lost profit.

At the arbitration, there were a lot of accusations made against both parties and emotions were high. 

After much consideration, I feel the Company did the majority of the work they promised to do in the contract signed and/or agreed to by the customer.  The Company collected about 77% of the contract price and, according to the Customer, completed about 70% of the work.  Communication between the parties did not appear to be good on several occasions with neither party knowing fully what was going on with the other party. 

I feel the Company completed work, per contract and verbal changes that were made, in accordance with the amount paid them by the Customer.  The Customer is not entitled to a refund of any of the amounts paid to the Company.

Furthermore, I feel the Company has been adequately paid for the work completed and is not entitled to any further compensation from the Customer.

Reasons for Decision:  Evidence and testimony provided at the hearing showed the Company did complete most the work required in the contract and was duly paid by the Customer for the work completed.  The Customer did breach the contract on at least two occasions but continued to retain and depend on the Company to complete the work. 

Stipulated Actions to be Completed:  Neither party is awarded further compensation from the other party.

The Company is ordered to return the Customers keys, garage door opener and any other personal property they may have in their possession.  The Company is also required to release any liens that may have been filed against the Customer's property by the Company or any sub-contractors.

Post Action Inspection to Be Performed:  NA

Signature

Bill W. Bolding

The Morgan Company is in the business of helping people realize their dreams in their building projects.  We consider ourselves Dream makers.  We are very good at it and successful as well.  That's why we've been in business for 45 years.  Most issues are resolved easily with good communication.  When communication breaks down, we resolve to do our best to ensure customer satisfaction.  That's our goal, and we take pride in that.  We are proud of our work.

The Morgan Company entered into a contract agreement for remodeling the home in Southlake of the person filing this complaint.  After the down payment, the contract specified an amount due when the permit was issued.  The homeowner refused to pay that installment.  She breached the contract.  She came back to the Morgan Company to remodel her home, and a second contract was entered into and work began on her home.  When the next installment was due, the homeowner refused to pay again.  Work ceased. 

The Morgan Company asked the BBB for arbitration as the homeowner refused to abide by the contract and resolution could not be attained without third party intervention.

It is important to note that the BBB Case Number listed in this complaint, #91377462, is not a real case number.  The BBB Case Number is #91355998. 

As with Ripoff, the homeowner attempted to file multiple complaints with the BBB.  Case Number 91358361 was determined by the BBB to be a duplicate complaint and was dismissed as such.

Arbitration of case #91355998 was completed on October 13, 2016.  The BBB found that the Morgan Company completed the majority of work contracted to do and was compensated to the point of work completed.  Under the heading of "Reasons for Decision", the arbitrator wrote, "The Customer did breach the contract on at least two occasions but continued to retain and depend on the Company to complete the work."

Below is the transcribed report in its entirety verbatum, from the BBB but withholding the complaintant's name per RipOff's rules:

Case Discussion:  The case heard is first and foremost a case of breach of contract.  <person's name> hired the Morgan Company to construct a second story to her home.  The addition was to consist of a bedroom bath and closet to be constructed as a second level to the existing structure.

The original contract is a one page contract with a work proposal, including a general breakdown of the work to be performed, as well as a payment structure shown as a percentage of the total contract sum of $60,000.

The original contract was presented to the homeowner o  October 4, 2015, was initialed and signed by both parties.  The contract called for an initial payment of 10% or $6000.00 upon signing of the contract. 

Morgan Company (the contractor) received the contract, drew up the plans and presented the plans to secure a building permit.  The building permit was issued on November 11,2015.  The contract called for an additional payment of 30% or $18,000 upon issuance of the permit.  No additional payment was received.  Without such payment, Morgan Companies did not begin work on the addition. 

It appears no work, other than presenting the plans for approval and securing a building permit, had been done when on December 17, 2015, sent a notarized leter to Morgan Companies advisig them that she was cancelling the contract affective 12-17-15.  She further advised that Morgan Companies could retain the original $6000 paid as a down payment.

It appears no additional work was performed and contact was minimal from this date until April 27, 2016 when an additional $18,000 was paid.  On May 16, 2016, a second contract, in the amount of $63,350.00, was agreed upon by the parties and an additional draw of $25,460 was to be paid.  Morgan companies received payment of$18,000 on June 18,2016 with the additional amount owing of $7,460.00.  It was at this point that work acutually began and on the addition.

After the initial framing and plumbing was completed and the bathtub was installed, requested a work order change to allow for a larger tub.  Neither of the parties presented evidence of a supplemental  or revised work order and a second tub was ordered and purchased by .  The second tub was too large, requiring reframing of the bathroom and closet area.  At about this time the work stopped due to a wiring related problem that the Morgan Companies state was related to cable wiring which was not related to work he (the company) was performing.

The Morgan Companies state that due to several delays with lack of payment, reframing of a portion of the new addition and delays in delivery of a 3rd bathtub, several of the sub-contractors had moved onto other jobs and work came to a standstill.  As of 6-26-16, Morgan Companies had received $49,000 of the $63,350 owed by the terms of the second contract. (77% of total contract)

It is difficult to accurately estimate how much of the total work to be done had been completed on this date.  states the contractor has completed about 50% of Phase I of the construction.  Since it appears framing, electrical and much of the plumbing had been completed, 77% does not appear to be overstated.  

Hearing Inspection:  No on-site inspection was completed but both parties provided copies of contract, e-mails and photos of the work at the time of the hearing.

Arbitrator's Decision:  Both parties were quite adamant as to their respective positions and the outcome they would like to see.  

The customer feels that the Company failed to complete phase 1 of the project correctly and only completed 20% of the remainder of the project.  She requests the company refund her $38,000 for work not finished or completed incorrectly.  

The company states that the contract had specific actions that were to be taken with payments to  be made after steps were completed.  The Company feels the Customer did not fulfill the contract, causing delays to the project and, on occasion, bringing the project to a halt.  The Company requests the Customer pay and additional $10,315,23 to cover additional work completed and for lost profit.

At the arbitration, there were a lot of accusations made against both parties and emotions were high. 

After much consideration, I feel the Company did the majority of the work they promised to do in the contract signed and/or agreed to by the customer.  The Company collected about 77% of the contract price and, according to the Customer, completed about 70% of the work.  Communication between the parties did not appear to be good on several occasions with neither party knowing fully what was going on with the other party. 

I feel the Company completed work, per contract and verbal changes that were made, in accordance with the amount paid them by the Customer.  The Customer is not entitled to a refund of any of the amounts paid to the Company.

Furthermore, I feel the Company has been adequately paid for the work completed and is not entitled to any further compensation from the Customer.

Reasons for Decision:  Evidence and testimony provided at the hearing showed the Company did complete most the work required in the contract and was duly paid by the Customer for the work completed.  The Customer did breach the contract on at least two occasions but continued to retain and depend on the Company to complete the work. 

Stipulated Actions to be Completed:  Neither party is awarded further compensation from the other party.

The Company is ordered to return the Customers keys, garage door opener and any other personal property they may have in their possession.  The Company is also required to release any liens that may have been filed against the Customer's property by the Company or any sub-contractors.

Post Action Inspection to Be Performed:  NA

Signature

Bill W. Bolding

The Morgan Company is in the business of helping people realize their dreams in their building projects.  We consider ourselves Dreammakers.  We are very good at it and successful as well.  That's why we've been in business for 45 years.  Most issues are resolved easily with good communication.  When communicaiton breaks down, we resolve to to do our best to ensure customer satisfaction.  That's our goal, and we take pride in that.  We are proud of our work.