Kershaw Animal Hospital

Read Kershaw Animal Hospital reviews to check if Kershaw Animal Hospital legit or scam.

Globalsolutionbusiness.com: We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The vendor does not suggest resolving the compliant, everything he wrote is making excuses or blaming the previous board.We have review Pavement Management Statements and most of it in our opinion is just making excuses, clouding the issues and blaming the previous board: Several things relating to the [redacted] Broad is not correct, we are in contact with the [redacted] Board everyday, and they do NOT have a good working relationship with PMI nor according to them have they had one since the project began, they dealt with him because of the commitment to the project We meet with the [redacted] Board relating to every response and they do not appreciate being blamedThey feel like PMI, is just making excuses relating to the outstanding issues as they always did during and after the project.All we wanted was to stop the garages from flooding and stop the water pooling in several areas and fix the top soil which started when the project was completed, (yes we paid for additional drainage and yes they negotiated the prices, we are a small condo association and we do NOT have loads of money setting around.) Why the [redacted] board did not want to address the issues we do not know: As for PMI, NOT sub-contracting out the job, YES they did, we have the business cards of the sub they used, we have pictures of the subs with different companies shirts on and logos, yes we paid PMI, they acted as the general but they used a sub-contractor to finish the work which was NOT at the same level/ standard of workmen ship that the first half the project was completed with, the differences were noted and documented.We have try to work out a resolution with PMI, without success so we have voted to move on, we are not wasting anymore time with this company, we are contacting another company to fixture the issues; garages flooding, water pooling and finish the topsoil in the last half of the project which in our opinion should have been completed by PMI in the beginning(The price was set at $200,by averaging the bids for the project we have the working papers and board minutes relating to such plus we paid for additional items, all of which in our opinion is irrelevant to the outstanding issues now.)Again all we wanted was to stop the flooding of the garages, stop the water pooling and fix the topsoil issues in the last half of the projectWith that we would have been a satisfied customer!We are closing this compliant by contracting with another company to fix the issues Regards, [redacted]

Posted by Reporter4282044,

Globalsolutionbusiness.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.First item that Dan *** reference is the the time fact, yes it took us about weeks to answer because of several reasons: 1) Board of Directors Elections were taking place, 2) We had asked several companies to come in and review the project to get some idea want went wrong and why: That took several weeks, we contacted six companies only three or four gave us an estimate of what it would take to fix the blacktop cracking away on the edgesEach contractor was surprised that edging was NO installed in some areas, but in others areas there was topsoil edging installed If we want to bring up the time factor, the board contact Pavement Management back in January about these issues and Mr *** did not follow back up unto March after some phone calls, thus the reason for the different actions this time.As for the $200,not to exceed amount: That was NOT some figure the *** board came up with, they actually got several bids for this project with Pavement Management being the most expensive: The *** board averaged all the bids together and came up with the $200,amountThere was some logic about the approach: They went with PM because of their references and they felt they were paying a premium price for a premium job without issues.Plus Pavement agreed to supply the additional services, garbage and people transport this was all agreed upon during the site visits and meetings.As you review the bids received for this project, all the bids except Pavement Management shows top soil (back fill) being installed in ALL areas but Pavement Management contract/ proposal is so ambiguous (unclear, not definite), one can not be sure if they bidden the job with or without the fill: All other companies bidden the job with the back fill, so the board was *** the assumption that Pavement Management included such alsoThat is the reason the board kept rejecting additional fees or proposalsThey were NOT experts in paving.As for the drainage issues Mr *** state they were not contracted to fix drainage issues, that were already here, he is correct but we did not have pooling in the roadways until the paving job was completed and we did not have several (to garages) flooding because of the *** pavingNot until this job was completed did the pooling of water on J*** and *** began and particular garages started flooding as the rains cameThese items were developed because of the new paving job and were NOT here before Pavement Management began the work.We were not surprised of the tone, or the aggressiveness of Pavement Management letterThis is NOT an attempt to get anything free, nor is it an attempt to blacken their reputation It is an attempt to have issues corrected relating to the workmanship: We did not agree to have our job sub-contracted out, the board was *** the assumption Pavement Management was doing the work not another companyPavement Management stated they got very busy so they sub-contracted out the remainder of the work, the flooding, pooling and most of the edging issues are in the sub-contracted part of the jobThe first part of the job we and our members were some what pleased
Regards,
*** *** PhD

Posted by Reporter3752119,

May 21, 2017*** *** *** Owners Association*** *** ***Cincinnati, Ohio 45255Attn: Mr*** ***, TreasurerMr***,Pavement Management Inc(PMI) is in receipt of your May 10, 2017response to their March 30, proposalThe amount of time from the dateof the PMI proposal until
your response was almost six weeks.Rather than engage in constructive dialogue to find a solution to yourconcerns, you have instead chosen to file a complaint with the BetterBusiness Bureau on that same day, May 10, 2017, rather than allowing asingle business day for PMI to respond to your response, Based on yourresponse, it seems that the *** *** board has again rejected ourrecommendation to install topsoil along road edges.A positive relationship with *** *** began with a phone call that PMIreceived from ** *** in early requesting a bUdget amount for someasphalt and drainage work.The first request was a bUdget to install drains and 4″ thick asphalt pavementat *** *** *** ***, The price PMI submitted on March 18,was $25,PMI also proposed Topsoil, Seed and Straw of lawnareas within two fel2t of pavement edges in that lot for $The project Parking Lots was not funded by the *** *** board and the proposal was rejectedRoadsDemolition A second board request was a budget from PMI to install a r thick asphalt Drainage overlay in all other areas, On March 25, 2014, PMI submitted a “Draft Budgetfor Asphalt Paving” to the board through ** ***, with an estimated cost of $184,for asphalt base repairs, 2″ thick overlay of other existing surfaces, 1,LF of edge curb, six speed bumps and traffic paintThe estimated cost of the two projects would have been $211,534.00.*** *** did not yet have funding for either and based on what we were t*** bythe board, began to collect assessments from *** *** Association owners sothat some amount of asphalt work could be started in the future.PMI was then asked to submit a proposal to divide the project into two phasesThePhase One proposal was to pave about half of the association, from the clubhouseto the rear of ***, which was dated May 12, We received a faxedsigned proposal dated May 14, 2014, with a written request not to start until midAugustat the earliest but not later than September 2014, which would have allowedadditional time for the association to collect outstanding assessments from its’owners so that some work could be fundedBy October 10, 2014, with late seasonrains and deteriorating temperature conditions, a decision was agreed upon tosuspend any work and re-evaluate for the season.Discussions with ** *** and (other) board members during spring about whatthe board could afford led to a new estimated cost of $219,for allassociation areas, which was limited to:Asphalt base repair in priority areas for $22,165.00Prep work and milling of certain areas for $38,160.002″ thick asphalt overlay of existing pavement for $145,945,001,Lineal feet of edge curb for $8,000,00Six speed bumps for $2,400,andRestripe of existing traffic paint for $2,500,00The *** *** Board decision to stay within their $200,000,limited funds,made at their July 9, board meeting when PMI was given the OK to start,included only prep work and milling of areas, asphalt repair of specific areas of roadbase, a 2″ asphalt overlay over the existing asphalt surface and re-paint of existingtraffic striping.The *** *** board, because they did not have enough funding, decided against1,If of edge curb (at $8,000,00) and the six speed bumps (at $2,400.00),leaving the total at $208,The board also commanded that the limited scopebe at a cost not-to-exceed $200,000, Through negotiation, PMI performed theproposed detailed scope and discounted $8,770,from the total cost and agreed toonly invoice the board for $200,000.00. As the paving started at the rear of the development, heading out from ***towards ***, PMI suggested topsoil of road edges be added so that therewould be a better transition to grassTopsoil was rejected because it was not in thebudget and due to the concern that it might encourage drivers to travel even fartheroff the road edges into grass areas or park in grass areasThere was no proposalfor or payment received or other consideration paid for any topsoilThe Globalsolutionbusiness.comcomplaint that PMI was paid for any topsoil is false.At one point during the project, crushed gravel berm was discussed but was decidedagainst because of cost and concerns about loose gravel in close residential settings.After the start of work, as the paving advanced towards *** *** Rd.,*** *** management asked if PMI could install drains at *** *** ***, although the association could not fund the drains at that timePMIagreed to install and finance the drains, which *** *** ultimately paid for infour installments, the final payment received in 2016.Already beyond their budget, *** *** requested no other work, not topsoil,edge curbs, gravel berm or speed bumpsWe did not invoice for any other work,not topsoil, edge curbs, gravel berm, or speed bumpsOur invoices 15-143-and15-143-which were approved and paid by the board detail only therequested work items.Everything PMI did throughout this project, including board desired work at the notto-exceedprice of $200,000,was approved after deliberation of cost by the 2014and *** *** board,During the project, PMI was able to improve minor previous drainage issues,including resolving long time water problems at the *** *** residence of theprevious board presidentWe addressed every issue brought up during the “punchlist” closeout to the satisfaction of the board, and final payment was not madeuntil those issues were resolved,PMI received numerous compliments on the quality and appearance of the projectby residents, many of whom we met personally as PMI provided daily shuttle servicethrough the ongoing construction sitePMI received an unsolicited comment from*** *** management stating how much nicer PMI’s compacted surfaceappeared when compared to a recently paved development nearby off of *** RdAt no cost to *** *** owners, PMI paid its’ crews andprovided a trailer to collect trash on pick up days so that disposal service would becontinuous and the trash truck would not be on the pavement during the first weekafter installationPMI distributed informational progress status flyers door-to-doorevery day during the project so that neighbors could better plan their daily travels. Indeed, in a July 22, flyer, PMI specifically warned each resident to not driveoff and onto pavement edges, as the edges could be damaged.PMI was not hired to redesign existing contours or re-engineer drainage or resolveother problems related to the designed narrow roadway or poor drainage conditionsthat have existed since the original construction of *** ***PMI maderecommendations to improve conditions and each was rejected, primarilydue to a limited budgetPMI was limited to only repair asphalt base areas andinstall a 2/overlay over the eXisting pavement, followed by traffic paint.Has the current *** *** board, knowing that the board did not fundrecommended edge curbing, speed bumps, topsoil or gravel berm or drainageimprovements allocated any funds in their current or future budget to address anyof these improvements?Pavement Management Inchas completed more than 5,projects during ourhistory in business and has never had a Globalsolutionbusiness.com complaint.The complaint claim found on the “Globalsolutionbusiness.com Compla”lnt Hub” that topsoil was paid for andnot installed is and an attempt to discredit PMI and its’ public imagePMIconsiders it to be not constructive and an attempt to coerce PMI into providing freeroad berm improvement and other items that were each previously rejected by theboard in the interest of staying within a $200/not-to-exceed price.Additional drainage problems blamed on PMI in the Globalsolutionbusiness.com complaint were in existencebefore we arrived on siteThere appears to have been minimal or no drainage in theoriginal design, there were no curb gutters constructed or any resemblance of afunctional drainage system in most areasPMI was not hired to assume the siteconditions that have been in existence since the original constructionPMI was hiredfor the above described work and was only paid for that work.Sincerely,Q~d~Dan ***Project ManagerPavement Management IncColerain AvenueCincinnati, Ohio

See also  Fast Deeds

Posted by Reporter3184465,

Globalsolutionbusiness.com Reference ID [redacted] June 2, 2017 [redacted] fax[redacted] Owners Association[redacted]Cincinnati, Ohio 45255Mr. [redacted], TreasurerPavement Management Inc. (PMI) is in receipt of follow up communicationdated May 31, 2017 from the Globalsolutionbusiness.com and offers this responseto your additional concerns in each paragraph,Beginning with a request from [redacted] for a paving budget in 2014 andcontinuing through the project work and close out on September 15, 2015,PMI and [redacted] always had open and friendly dialogue. Based on thatrelationship, PMI expected a constructive business response to our March 30,2017 proposal which was requested by [redacted], While PMI understandsthat [redacted] still rejects paying for road edge berm, PMI was quitesurprised that [redacted] decided to file with the Globalsolutionbusiness.com on the same day PMIwas notified that our proposal was rejected. The [redacted] concern about achange in tone mentioned in their May 31 Globalsolutionbusiness.com note actually initiated with the[redacted] Globalsolutionbusiness.com filing on May 10th, 2017, The PMI May 21, 2017 Globalsolutionbusiness.comresponse addresses and contrasts your filing, as the PMI response is factfilled and contains information apparently only known to the [redacted]2014/2015 board members that negotiated and agreed to the detailed scopeand cost of the work. It has always been PMI’s position that keeping lines ofcommunication open has the best potential to improve any situation. Movingthe discussion from verbal to written exchange with the Globalsolutionbusiness.com was the decisionof the 2017 [redacted] board.Parking Lots Based on my notes, [redacted] contacted us and we mutually agreed toRoads meet on site at lOam Friday, February 3, 2017. I have a note that we spokeDemolition again on Feb 8 at 10: 15 am and again on February 15 around 9:30am. PMIDrainage did not prepare a proposal for the requested additional work until late March,as our crews and most of the staff are off duty during January, February, and • Asphalt PavingMarch each year during winter shutdown and we would not have a crew • Asphalt Repairsavailable to do the work until our usual seasonal start around April 1. I do • Sealcoating recall that we may have spoken once or twice during March, however, the • l.inestriping purpose of each conversation was interest in a proposal and I did not make a • Catch Basins record of additional conversations. The Globalsolutionbusiness.com note about the similar amount of· Drain Pipe· Site Grading• Concrete Curbs• Concrete Work time that it took other contractors to respond to the [redacted] request fora proposal is not atypical in our industry; most local contractors significantlyreduce their staffing during the off season as it is difficult to establishproduction for employees when c[redacted] weather and rain seems to be thenormal condition.PMI disagrees with the [redacted] May 31, 2017 Globalsolutionbusiness.com statement concerningthe $200,000 not-to-exceed amount. We contend that in fact, $200,000.00was “the figure that the [redacted] board came up with”. Topsoil for roadedges, or a gravel berm, or speedbumps to slow traffic on the narrow roadsand / or 1,000 If of curbing to provide some protection for pavement edges inpriority areas were each rejected, as we were t[redacted] that additional funding wasnot available,Stated in our May 21, 2017 response to the Globalsolutionbusiness.com, as the paVing advancedtowards [redacted] Rd” [redacted] 2015 management asked ifPMI could replace broken trench drains at [redacted],although the [redacted] manager t[redacted] us they could not pay for the drainsat that time, PMI agreed to finance the drains interest free and was paid laterin four installments during the next eight months as funds became available.The payments totaling $7,486.00 for the requested drains were datedOctober 26, 2015 check [redacted] for $1,486.00, January 14, 2016 check [redacted] for$2,000.00, February 23, 2016 check [redacted] for $2,000.00 and the finalpayment on May 3, 2016, check [redacted] for the final $2,000.00 balance. PMIhad a good working relationship with the 2015 [redacted] board. If the2015 board was not limited to the $200,000 that was available, we believethey would have paid PMI in full for the requested drains at the end of thejob.PMI received two $100,000,00 payments for the agreed upon scope of work.Check [redacted] was issued on August 21, 2015 for $100,000.00. After 100%completion, inspection and 100% satisfaction of the “punch list” of close outitems, check [redacted] was issued on September 22, 2015 for $100,000.00,The PMI offer that the 2015 [redacted] board accepted; PMI proVidingassistance with househ[redacted] trash removal during the project and providingshuttle service was a function of scheduling offered at the July 9, 2015 preconstructionmeeting in order to keep the work progressing and proVide awork safe environment for our employees and for the residents.Contained in the new May 31, 2017 [redacted] Globalsolutionbusiness.com filing is their concessionthat all bids received for the project except Pavement Management showtop soil being installed in ALL areas but claims that the PMIproposal is so ambiguous / unclear/not definite and states that the “board was under theassumption that Pavement Management included such also~~ That is thereason the board kept rejeding additional fees or proposals.The 2017 [redacted] Board has now stated that the 2015 board was awarethat all other bids included topsoil, so the (2015) board assumed that PMIwould provide topsoil, although it was not in the PMI proposal. The2015 board and the residents saw the job every day; we walked through thefinished work at the end of the job on September 10, 2015 and completedthe “punch list” of final items on September 15, 2015. Not a single boardmember asked when topsoil would be installed. The 2015 board reviewed thecompleted scope of work and approved paying in full the agreed amount forthe scope of work, because topsoil was not part of the scope of work.Concerning the statement about drainage issues already in eXistence, [redacted] is correct that we were not contracted to fix problems that havebeen there since the original construction. The 2017 board might alsoconsider that the permeability of the previous aged and cracked pavement isgoing to be greater than the tight finish of newly placed asphalt. Storm waterwill disburse slower on new asphalt while a greater percentage of water willpass through oxidized and cracked pavement.If there are “6 to 8 garages” on J[redacted] or [redacted] that are “flooding” duringrain, it was not brought up during the punch list close out. There was an areain the common [redacted] pavement where water pooled during a heavy rain andwe made an improvement during the punch list close out that resolved theissue, allowing storm water to drain across an almost flat surface off of theedge of the pavement towards the grass edge of the [redacted] visitor lot andaway from buildings. During the project, one of the residents on [redacted]commented that he thought that every condominium unit on [redacted] shouldhave been built higher than they were due to the topography of the land.This project was not sub-contracted as [redacted] claims. PavementManagement Inc. was in full control of the project and was on site workingthe project every single production day. We utilized our wide array of bestresources to get the best end result. We partnered with one of our regularmaterial suppliers to install the 2″ surface in order to utilize their newerheavier highway paver that would expand to a 15′ wide in order to minimizethe number of seams on several of the non-uniform width areas in thepavement. One of the comments that we received from 2015 [redacted]management was how much nicer our finished surface was than aneighboring project off of [redacted] Rd. PMI paving crew stayed ahead of the surface paving crew, repairingpavement base areas, removing each driveway apron and other worknecessary prior to surface installation,PMI was in full control of all work including project phasing and decidingwhich areas we would pave on a given day, PMI planned around predictedweather and made all of the project decisions. PMI composed and distributedprogress notices daily and provided our cell numbers for residents so thateach could have real-time updates about the hourly location of the dailypaving operation, PMI crews also performed all punch list work and were atthe project from its’ beginning until its’ conclusion, PMI proVided anyrequested assistance and answered any questions from residents.PMI installation technique and paving machine selection along With otherrelated equipment all meets paving standard construction practices.We understand your frustration as the 2017 board has inherited the sitedesign of the original developer. Decisions were made long ago during thedevelopment of your community to build roads with only a simple surfacedrainage system, minimal cross slope in areas and less than standard width inmost areas.Many of the condominium units seem to have been built With a floor elevationclose to surrounding grade, resulting in slower drainage away from buildings.Many downspouts drain next to a building, rather than towards a dischargepoint farther away from bUildings, During storm and hard rain events sincethe original developement, many [redacted] owners have experienced theseconditions and most have found a way to deal with them. Resurfacing yourroadways will not eliminate original development problems.We do wish the association and the families at [redacted] well. PMIcompleted the scope of work that was requested, approved and paid for bythe 2015 [redacted] board.Sincerely,ProjectDa~~~~ ManagerPavement Management Inc.4014 Colerain AvenueCincinnati, Ohio 45223

See also  Neurological Specialties of Long Island

Posted by Reporter1892388,

Globalsolutionbusiness.com:
We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The vendor does not suggest resolving the compliant, everything he wrote is making excuses or blaming the previous board.We have review Pavement Management Statements and most of it in our opinion is just making excuses, clouding the issues and blaming the previous board: Several things relating to the [redacted] Broad is not correct, we are in contact with the [redacted] Board everyday, and they do NOT have a good working relationship with PMI nor according to them have they had one since the project began, they dealt with him because of the commitment to the project.  We meet with the [redacted] Board relating to every response and they do not appreciate being blamed. They feel like PMI, is just making excuses relating to the outstanding issues as they always did during and after the project.All we wanted was to stop the garages from flooding and stop the water pooling in several areas and fix the top soil which started when the project was completed, (yes we paid for additional drainage and yes they negotiated the prices, we are a small condo association and we do NOT have loads of money setting around.) Why the [redacted] board did not want to address the issues we do not know: As for PMI, NOT sub-contracting out the job, YES they did, we have the business cards of the sub they used, we have pictures of the subs with different companies shirts on and logos, yes we paid PMI, they acted as the general but they used a sub-contractor to finish the work which was NOT at the same level/ standard of workmen ship that the first half the project was completed with, the differences were noted and documented.We have try to work out a resolution with PMI, without success so we have voted to move on, we are not wasting anymore time with this company, we are contacting another company to fixture the issues; garages flooding, water pooling and finish the topsoil in the last half of the project which in our opinion should have been completed by PMI in the beginning. (The price was set at $200,000 by averaging the bids for the project we have the working papers and board minutes relating to such plus we paid for additional items, all of which in our opinion is irrelevant to the outstanding issues now.)Again all we wanted was to stop the flooding of the garages, stop the water pooling and fix the topsoil issues in the last half of the project. With that we would have been a satisfied customer!We are closing this compliant by contracting with another company to fix the issues.
Regards,
[redacted]

See also  Harriet Salley Auto Sales

Posted by Reporter2123733,

Leave a Reply