Home Enrich

On behalf of Home Enrich, LLC, we are sorry to hear that this customer did not have the best experience possible with our company and the services that we provided, and continued to offer to provide, despite the customer’s own breach of the contract with Home Enrich, LLC. Our company’s mission is to always provide high quality, professional services that exceed the customer’s expectations. That being said, we believe it is necessary to respond to this complaint by addressing the false and misleading statements alleged against Home Enrich.

First, this project began as a laundry room remodel. This customer had their own private designer with whom Home Enrich worked in designing the renovation. After spending a month working on the design, plans, and costs for the laundry room, the customer then asked Home Enrich to renovate their entire kitchen, which Home Enrich agreed to do. While working on the design and proposal for the kitchen renovation, a water leak was discovered in the crawl space of the home.

The water leak was then submitted as a claim under the customer’s homeowners’ insurance policy. To make matters worse, during the insurance inspection it was discovered that mold and asbestos were present at the property, which required a third-party contractor to remediate. It was anticipated that it would take approximately three months to complete the remediation work, and because the hazardous conditions were located in and around the kitchen area, Home Enrich could not begin its work until the remediation work was completed—a fact that this customer was well-aware of.

Ultimately, the remediation work took nearly four months to complete. During this time, and continuing for about another month after the remediation work was finished, Home Enrich worked tirelessly with this customer and their designer to develop the plans for their desired kitchen. However, each time a design was close to being finalized, this customer would decide that they wanted a different design, which would result in a change in the scope of the previous design.

In our Company’s experience, this is not an uncommon occurrence, and Home Enrich is well-equipped to handle these kinds of changes in order to provide the customer with a finished product that exceeds their expectations. However, repeatedly changing the plans and scope of the project requires a substantial amount of time and work on Home Enrich’s part—another fact that this customer was well-aware of. Likewise, until the customer decides on a design/plan for their renovations, Home Enrich cannot apply for or obtain a building permit.

Nevertheless, Home Enrich was happy to oblige in order to build what this customer desired. Initially, the parties entered into a written contract around the time the remediation work began, and a couple months later entered into a second agreement, which was an amendment to the first contract to incorporate the change in the scope at the time. Approximately two months after the second agreement was signed, and following multiple changes to the overall scope and design of the project, Home Enrich then began—yet again—working on the construction drawings, soliciting bids from subcontractors, and otherwise spending many hours planning and preparing for construction of the most recent design. When Home Enrich provided the customer with the estimated cost, however, the customer indicated that it was not within their budget. They also made claims that they did not read through the allowances of specific materials within the contract, but that the materials being used to estimate the project did not meet their expectations. So, yet again, Home Enrich continued to work with the customer and their designer to make further changes to the project in order to bring it within the budget.

When it appeared that the customer had finally decided on a desired design that was within budget, Home Enrich sent a proposed new agreement that incorporated the changes in scope from the existing agreement. The customer, however, refused to accept the proposed agreement. Instead, and for unknown reasons, the customer demanded that Home Enrich perform the new scope of work, but refused to agree to the new scope, contractually. Furthermore, the customer attempted to coerce Home Enrich into waiving/releasing its lien rights, which is illegal in North Carolina.

Ultimately, after Home Enrich refused to perform the new scope of work demanded by the customer without an agreement to be compensated, and refused to illegally waive its lien rights, the customer unilaterally terminated their existing contract, without cause or the right to do so, therefore breaching the contract.

Since the time of the customer’s breach, and contrary to what the customer states in the complaint, Home Enrich has had numerous communications with this customer attempting to resolve the matter. Additionally, both Home Enrich and this customer are represented by attorneys, and those attorneys have been in communications. Nevertheless, this customer continues to make these baseless complaints against Home Enrich and leave negative reviews on various websites, which we believe are for the purpose of trying to disparage and harm the reputation of Home Enrich, LLC.

While we are sympathetic to this customer’s situation with respect to the mold remediation (not performed by us) taking nearly five months to complete, Home Enrich worked tirelessly with this customer to provide them with the product that they desired. Unfortunately, this customer’s complaint seems to be based on Home Enrich’s refusal to work for free.

And since both parties are represented by counsel, Home Enrich remains hopeful that this matter will be resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.


/Christopher Stevens/ Christopher Stevens
President, Home Enrich, LLC