Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage
you to read through our
Terms of Use
before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before
viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal
in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content
creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions,
but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe
in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful
content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating,
and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information
for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this
person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court
order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms
of Use, please complete the following short form.
|
Businiess name:
Usp United Steel Products
|
|
Review by:
citysearch c.
|
|
Review content:
I am a Coop board president at 36 Hamilton Avenue Corporation, a building of 116 shareholders on Staten Island, New York. USP was hired install 188 linear square footage of a decorative wrought iron fence, a deposit paid to USP. The contractual agreement signed on 7/7/2011 stated that installation of 188 linear square footage of decorative wrought iron fence paint process via 3 part electrostatic process. Additionally, we had hired a landscaper / masonry contractor to install pavers at the fence line. Both contractors met and were to work in conjunction with each other. The issues that surrounded USP negligence had also interfered with the timely installation of the masonry work for approx. a total of 2 weeks for USP to correct the initial issues.\r
The first issue presented when two employees from USP were sent( one week later and promised) to install footings of concrete 24 inches in depth and insert fence posts. The employees whom never viewed the jobsite prior to installation were not supervised properly and were confused at where to begin. Subsequently I called Susan Hutter (SALES MANAGER) and Al (BOSS) Requesting supervision which USP begrudgingly complied. \r
Second Issue approx. two days after installation, it was visible that the posts were not accurately spaced. This was due to the fact that the post for the gate of a fire exit was inadvertently left out and inserted after all other post were installed. USP responded again begrudgingly and approx. one week later three posts were removed and reinserted for a less obvious inaccurate spacing. \r
The final Issue of poor workmanship as well as not following contractual agreement was after all the posts were installed as well as masonry work completed. It was obvious the fence posts were not lined up properly and multiple height variations. Using a level it was clear to see that the majority of posts were not level on all four sides. Additionally visible rusting on majority of posts and paint peeling were visible after two weeks of being installed. \r
Subsequently after complaint to USP, a check for the deposit was returned. Thereafter AL (Boss) was summoned by my property manager to view the poor workmanship. Al (BOSS) responded and one week later revuiewd the jobsite and stated
|
Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
|
|
Reasons are required.
|
|
or
Cancel
|