I even got a closeup of a big chunk of old dried yoke on the shutter that she pointed out, followed by a sharp remark regarding my ineptness.
I have never had this happen before - the house was so dirty the existing blight was inscrutable. The varigated pattern unveiled can not be replicated with a powerwashing - that is intuative! I did not solicit the job. Hovever, your observation is valid in that the only way to protect yourself is with a contract - and of course you need an attorney to verify that the contract is immutable.Just playing devil's advocate....
You seen the siding before washing, did it occur that it was old and power washing might creat a problem? Was that communicated to her, preferably in writing?
Yeah I know, a royal PITA but when you sell your services you MUST do all you can to CYA and try to anticipate where things can go wrong and put them in writing. That lesson comes from having been in your position.
I appreaciate your sentiments, but I have already lost in that I have a letter from a government official asking for evidence of rectification; what have I done to fix the problem. Guilty until proven innocent - the new American way! I should have been the first to complain - her siding messed up my powerwasher! Then she would have the onus on her; but I didn't know.
:facepalm:
I have that in an email, not the hail damage - the offer refusal. The hail damage remark was a blurt.
Bubba: When there is a drip stain running down the siding from the edge of the gutter, anyone can tell that there is a stain coming down from the edge of the gutter - it is intuative. When their are sockerball size anomalies that are lighter in color than the ambient, it is intuative that a back, and fourth washing motion will not replicate, but will only reveal their existance. Would one say that I stayed aloft in one spot at random locations in order to produce a varigated pattern of oblong shapes - removing the finish, but leaving the primer in tact -to what end? The egging was intuative; as she pointed it out, and idenified it too me! This preponderance makes moot any legalities. The hell with the devil, I'm talking about right, and wrong here. Isn't it intuative that after 25+ years of abuse, maintenance cycles were necessary! It is intuative to many here that she has an intractable position of " I'll screw you by any free means I can to get all I can from you regardless of the facts" Don't try to sell me the ignorance defense. No one is that ignorant about their abode that they have lived in for 25+ years ; she had intimate knowledge of what lied under her dirt. Can't you connect the dots that lead to dispicable subterfuge? Your customer could have been ignorant. The political affirmation was wrong - I apoligize. Are we to the point that we can't look someone in the eye and agree to less than $100.00, worth of work without trying to extort $1,625.00, from them? Do we have to cover every conceivable eventuallity with a contract? I offered to restore the degredated finish for a fraction. Since that was not enough, than the hell with her too.
Encouraging her kind of behavior only perpetuates it.
She did not collect any money as she had no grounds in which to do so. If I had known that bit of information, I would not have offered her any compensation. She will not now receive any releif from me short of a judge putting me in jail, and confiscating my property, and giving it to her. She may soon find herself on the end of a criminal complaint. I'm sure she has a further history of preying on the unsuspecting. You don't become that insidious with a zero compromise policy without refinement. I believe that what goes around comes around. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I wrote a letter to the man who has the complaint at the consumer agency. Hopefully he will disuade her from pursuing any more attempts at redress for an existing condition.
