I had such a bad experience with GTB, they asked me to pay upfront $20,000 in Jan., 2016 for my basement renovation at 3 Keith Ave., and promised to finish by 30th Feb., 2016. By August 2016, my basement is still the same, unfinished and they charged me $13,000 just to get the Permit and moved the washing & dryer upstairs. Now they said they don't want to finish the work. Now I have to solve this thru small claim court.
- Approximate cost of services:
- $30,000.00
- Company Response
It is unfortunate that this review has been written. In respect to the allegations of payments and services provided, GTB is obligated to keep the accountability of our relationship with the client factual. A contract was entered into, in January 2016 in respect to building a basement apartment. A contract separate from the build was also entered into, to provide Design and Permit Ready Drawings for the same build. Our design contracts demonstrate that a building permit MUST be issued and approved. The timeline of constructing and finishing a build hinges on the return of such permit. The timelines demonstrated to complete the task of construction for the end of February were based on being in receipt of a permit.
The frustrations demonstrated in the review submitted by our client, we believe are attributed in that upon our design visit, the basement had taken on 6-8 inches of water resulting in a failed sump pump. The flooding caused damage to the client’s furnace and required immediate repairs to minimize the extent of the damage. Upon further investigation of all areas of the basement, GTB found code violations that had been created from previous renovations prior to her ownership. For example, the investigation uncovered underpinning was performed without a valid permit, which created extensive issues with groundwater flooding. GTB was also apprised that there was no home inspection requested before her purchase. Regardless, our efforts were focused on repairs and submission of permit, and informing the client that the code violations would have to be rectified. Services were also provided at the client’s request to provide laundry facilities for the upper tenants.
A permit was eventually issued for the client, however, revisions had to be provided as the property had zoning issues in respect to parking conditions, and a kitchen would not be approved. The repairs identified by our design team in conjunction with our engineers, have since been rectified by the client directly with other trades. GTB’s position to not provide services to carry out the build was based on the fact that the services carried out by the client directly, had no warranties or guarantees against future flooding. We were given no assurance that violations had been rectified, nor would they be in the immediate future.
The client was provided with detailed costs associated with all services and repairs, and authorized revisions throughout the process in our relationship with the client. A refund was issued for the balance of the funds not spent. This refund was refused, as the client has sought to have GTB brought to court in claiming a full refund with additional costs.