Report: #1040008

Complaint Review: Langs Kitchen and Bath

  • Submitted: Tue, April 02, 2013
  • Updated: Tue, April 23, 2013
  • Reported By: Ronald — Langhorene Pennsylvania
  • Langs Kitchen and Bath
    440 E Center Ave
    Newtown, Pennsylvania
    United States of America

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Went in there two weeks ago after making an appointment with a Mary Ann, sat down with her and owner John, and went over our plans to do a kitchen.  Gave us three different budgets and picked the top budget.  Got as far as designing the whole kitchen, picking out cabinets etc, then when the new budget was done shocked to see how high it was.  When asked about it they got extremely defensive and condescending.  Mary Ann was outright rude.  This was my money we were dealing with.  Told them to forget the entire 60k job and walked out.  Waste of time.  All they want is your money!!! Left Langs  and went with Sycamore Kitchens and WHAT A PLEASURE to deal with.  They went over everything with me showing exactly where our money was going and had no problem with our questions.  They realized if we were spending 60k or so,( turned out to be 8k less for the same thing)  they understood we had the right to know where our money was going.  They brought in their contractors to our home and they explained where our money was going and we  did not have the feeling that we were being 'screwed over'  It is a shame that in todays economy you have business's who are  "holyer than thou" and dont expect consumers to want to know where their money is going.  I DO NOT RECOMEND USING LANGS DRIVE A LITTLE FURTHER AND USE SYCAMORE'S INSTEAD
Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 04/02/2013 11:17 AM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Never Sold a Ronald Lewis

AUTHOR: John - ()


As the administration struggles to put in place the final, complex piece of President Obama’s signature health care law, an endeavor on a scale not seen since Medicare’s creation nearly a half-century ago, Democrats are worried that major snags will be exploited by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

Many Democrats also want to see a more aggressive and visible president to push the law across the country. This week Mr. Obama is returning to the fray to an extent unseen since he signed the law in 2010, including a White House event on Friday to promote the law’s benefits for women, the first in a series of appearances for health care this year.

A number of health insurance changes have already taken place, but this fall, just as the 2014 election season heats up, is the deadline for introducing the law’s core feature: the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, where millions of uninsured Americans can buy coverage, with subsidies for many.

For the third time, Republicans are trying to make the law perhaps the biggest issue of the elections, and are preparing to exploit every problem that arises. After many unsuccessful efforts to repeal the law, the Republican-led House plans another vote soon. And Republican governors or legislatures in many states are balking at participating, leaving Washington responsible for the marketplaces.

“There are very few issues that are as personal and as tangible as health care, and the implementation of the law over the next year is going to reveal a lot of kinks, a lot of red tape, a lot of taxes, a lot of price increases and a lot of people forced into health care that they didn’t anticipate,” said Brad Dayspring, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “It’s going to be an issue that’s front and center for voters even in a more tangible way than it was in 2010.”

That year a conservative backlash against the new law helped Republicans take control of the House. But last year Mr. Obama was re-elected, and Democrats gained seats in Congress.

Democrats are worried about 2014 — a president’s party typically loses seats in midterm years — and some have gone public with concerns about the pace of carrying out the law. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, told an interviewer last week that he agreed with a recent comment by Senator Max Baucus of Montana, a Democratic architect of the law, who said “a train wreck” could occur this fall if preparations fell short.

The White House has allayed some worries, with briefings for Democrats about their public education plans, including PowerPoint presentations that show areas with target populations down to the block level.

“There’s clearly some concern” among Democrats “that their constituents don’t yet have all facts on how it will work, and that Republicans are filling that vacuum with partisan talking points,” said Representative Steve Israel of New York, head of the House Democrats’ campaign committee. “And the administration must use every tool they have to get around the obstructions and make it work.”

The latest poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, released last week, showed that Americans remain split on the law, although four in 10 are unaware that Mr. Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act is indeed a law.

The Kaiser polls tracking Americans’ attitudes in recent years have been generally consistent, with Democrats supporting the law and Republicans against it. But the percentage of respondents who are undecided has been building lately, to about a quarter. Administration officials said those were the people they were hoping to win over.

Democrats argue that repeal attempts will only hurt Republicans and alienate the very voters they are trying to appeal to — women, young adults and Latinos. Those are the groups most supportive of the law.

“If they think they’re going to run the 2014 election on refighting the political battles of 2010, they’re going to fare very poorly,” said Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist. “We’re going to implement the law well, and we don’t worry.”

About half of United States adults ages 19 to 64 didn’t have health insurance for at least part of last year or were underinsured, a new report from the Commonwealth Fund says.

The fund, a private nonprofit organization that finances research into health care and health policy issues, conducts the health insurance survey every two years.

One bright spot, the report found, is that the proportion of young adults without health insurance fell significantly over the last two years, probably because of a provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26. The rule took effect in September 2010.

Nearly eight out of 10 (79 percent) young adults reported that they were insured, up from 69 percent in 2010. That marks “an abrupt reversal in a decadelong climb” in the number of uninsured young adults, the report said.

Uninsured rates for other age groups, however, either rose or stayed the same. About half of adults ages 19 to 64 didn’t have health insurance for all of 2012 or were underinsured, meaning that they had insurance but struggled to pay for medical costs anyway.

At the time of the survey, about 30 percent said they were uninsured or were insured but hadn’t been at some point during the year. Another 16 percent had insurance, but had such high out-of-pocket medical costs relative to their income that they were effectively uninsured.

The survey also found that people are increasingly skipping needed health care because they can’t afford it (about 43 percent answered yes to that question). That’s up from 37 percent in 2003, the report noted.

The report found that about two out of every five adults had trouble paying medical bills last year or were paying off medical debt over time, and that many of those struggling with medical debt (42 percent) said they had received a lower credit rating as a result.

The results are based on a telephone survey of 4,432 adults by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from April 25 to August 19, 2012. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

The report is the last one the fund will conduct before the major provisions of the Affordable Care Act are scheduled to go into effect, in January 2014.

Did you have a gap in insurance coverage last year? Do you expect the health care law to help provide you with coverage?

When employer costs are taken into account, it is unclear whether jobs are something that can be efficiently shared.


Perspectives from expert contributors.

The idea behind work-sharing is that employers have a certain amount of work that needs to be done, and that the work can be divided by many employees working a few hours each or a few employees working many hours each. If hours per employee could be limited, by this logic employers would have to hire more employees to get the same amount of work done.

American labor law has traditionally placed some limits on employee hours, such as overtime regulations. While the recent Affordable Care Act does not strictly limit hours per employee, beginning next year it gives employers a strong push toward part-time employment by levying a significant fee per full-time employee and exempting part-time employees from the fee.

A number of employers have said they would change some work schedules to part time from full time to avoid some Affordable Care Act fees. Because part-time workers generally have fewer benefits than full-time employees, this could save employers a considerable sum. From the work-sharing perspective, the part-time employee exemption by itself would be expected to increase employment, because employers would have to hire more people (probably on a part-time basis) to complete work their employees used to accomplish when full time.

But it is possible that work-sharing would reduce employment rather than increase it, because it prevents employers from accomplishing their tasks at minimum cost, adding administrative and coordination expenses. Higher costs for employers may put them out of business, or at least reduce the scale of their business. When companies reduce the scale of their activities, that means fewer employees. It is also possible that work-sharing would reduce employment by making jobs less attractive to people who desire full-time work. One reason that people sometimes justify commuting long distances to work or enrolling in demanding training programs – trucking and nursing are two such occupations — is that they expect to recoup those cost by taking advantages of opportunities to earn extra by working long hours.

Work-sharing proponents have credited Germany’s comparative low unemployment rate to its adoption of a work-sharing program, because the program encourages German employers to reduce employee hours rather than lay workers off. Work-sharing proponents may be right, although Germany carried out a number of labor-market reforms at the same time, such as allowing businesses to use temporary workers more easily.

As the Affordable Care Act suddenly pushes business toward part-time employment, we economists will have an unusual opportunity to learn whether cutting employee hours creates jobs, or destroys them

The measure allowing such data collection is one of a handful that the Texas Medical Association is pushing this legislative session to help modernize medical practices. The association is also backing bills that would standardize preauthorization forms used by health plans for prescription drugs and health care services.

“A lot of these things are easy fixes,” said Dr. Michael Speer, president of the Texas Medical Association. “It’s just a matter of getting enough people to come together and agree that it’s the right fix.” (The Texas Medical Association is a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune.) The association, which represents more than 47,000 physicians and medical students, asserts that time and money are wasted on bureaucracy, and that each physician spends nearly $83,000 a year on administrative costs. It donated more than $1.3 million to state candidates in 2011 and 2012.

Medical practitioners must follow myriad procedures for billing private and public health plans. Many hire additional staff members to handle the paperwork, and simple errors can obstruct payment.

“It’s an extremely inefficient business model,” said Dr. Bernard Swift Jr., chief executive of Texas MedClinic, a network of urgent-care facilities.

Dr. Swift said Senate Bill 166, which is awaiting the governor’s signature, would eliminate repetitive paperwork by allowing licensed health care providers to collect accurate patient information from a driver’s license. Now, only hospitals in Texas are authorized to do so.

Senate Bills 644 and 1216, which have been approved by the Senate and referred to a House committee, would standardize the preauthorization forms required for prescription drugs and health services.

If health plans used the same or similar forms, it “could make a dramatic difference in the amount of manpower hours” spent on paperwork, said Representative John Zerwas, a Republican from Simonton. Dr. Zerwas, who is also an anesthesiologist, sponsored S.B. 644.

Although insurance industry representatives originally opposed the preauthorization form bills, they support the revised versions of the legislation that would set up expert advisory councils at the Texas Department of Insurance to ensure that the state’s standardized forms match federal standards and allow for electronic transmission of the records.

“Let the experts determine form and format,” said David Gonzales, executive director of the Texas Association of Health Plans. In health care, “standards at the national level are the preference. You don’t want 50 different state approaches.” (The Texas Association of Health Plans is a corporate sponsor of The Tribune.)

As physicians adapt their practices to the digital era, collecting accurate patient data — like that from a driver’s license — will help improve payment systems, ensure patient safety and prevent insurance fraud, said Nora Belcher, executive director of the Texas e-Health Alliance, an association of health technology stakeholders.

“What’s really best for the patient is complete data at the point of care,” Ms. Belcher said.

A number of industries can expect big changes in employee health insurance in the next year or two, while others will continue with business as usual.

Perspectives from expert contributors.

Beginning next year, states and the federal government intend to create opportunities for families to purchase health insurance, separate from their employers, through insurance “exchanges” in the states. Insurers and the federal government will heavily advertise the new plans. Most important, middle- and low-income families may qualify for valuable federal subsidies that will serve to reduce premiums and out-of-pocket health costs.

To qualify for subsidized exchange plans, workers cannot be offered affordable insurance by their employers. Paradoxically, employers will create subsidy opportunities for their middle- and low-income employees whenever they fail to offer health insurance.

On the other hand, an employer dropping its health insurance next year will put its high-income employees in a tough spot, because they will have to buy insurance on their own without the tax advantages they had in the past by obtaining health insurance through their employer. As a result, employers with relatively many high-income employees will be under pressure to keep their insurance, whereas an employer of middle- and low-income employees may find them asking for health insurance to be dropped from the employee benefit menu.

Administrative costs, rising premiums and other costs have already made a number of employers lukewarm about health insurance, but they offered it in order to attract employees who do not care to be uninsured or to end up on Medicaid. The new insurance opportunities that become available next year may give their employees enough of an alternative that the lukewarm employers can drop their plans. Both of these situations are closely correlated across industries, which leaves me to suspect that we can readily predict the industries that will retain employer insurance and predict those that will drop whatever health benefits they currently have. The scatter diagram below displays Bureau of Labor Statistics data on several industries according to the percentage of their employees in families above three times the poverty line (horizontal axis) and the percentage of employers offering health benefits as of March 2012 (vertical axis).

Bureau of Labor Statistics

I measured employees relative to three times the poverty line because that is the family income threshold beyond which the new exchange subsidies are less valuable than the income tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Industries like colleges, utilities and banking almost always offer health insurance, and about 80 percent of their employees will be getting a better deal on employer health insurance than they would from the exchange plans because their families are above three times the poverty line. For these reasons, I am confident that these industries will continue to offer health insurance to their employees in much the same way that they have in the past.

A couple of industries like “accommodation and food services” (i.e., restaurants), leisure and hospitality, administrative and waste services, and construction already have a mix of employers in terms of their health insurance offerings, so it would not be unusual from an industry perspective for those that currently have health plans to drop them during the next couple of years.

Moreover, the diagram shows how 45 to 60 percent of their employees do not come from families above three times poverty and therefore will have a significant federal health insurance subsidy waiting for them as soon as their employers drop coverage.

Employers that do not offer health insurance may be subject to penalties, but the penalties are not levied based on part-time employees, or levied on small employers, and even the penalties levied will be less than the subsidy opportunities created by an employer of middle- and low-income people that fails to offer health insurance.

For these reasons, I suspect that the stories we will hear about employers dropping insurance will disproportionately come from the industries shown in the lower left part of the scatter diagram, which collectively employ about 25 million people. Some employers in these industries have already discussed such plans

The bipartisan Congressional committee currently investigating the secret dealings between the Obama administration and Big Pharma prior to the passage of the massive health care overhaul is set to release pertinent new details as to what these dealings entailed. In a recent memorandum, the committee unveils the names of some of the key figures involved with these secret negotiations, and promises to release even more shocking details in the coming weeks.
Addressed specifically to the Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the memo explains a little bit more about how the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a powerful lobbying group that represents the drug and biotechnology industries, colluded with the federal government to make the terms of Obamacare as favorable to drug companies as possible. Both the federal government and PhRMA secretly agreed to abide by certain undisclosed commitments to one another as part of the passage of the bill, the details of which largely remain hidden from public view.
"In the coming weeks the Committee intends to show what the White House agreed to do as part of its deal with the pharmaceutical industry and how the full details of this agreement were kept from both the public and the House of Representatives," wrote members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in their memo.
"The investigation has determined that the White House, primarily through Office of Health Reform Director Nancy Ann DeParle and (Jim) Messina, with involvement from Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, was actively engaged in these negotiations while the role of Congress was limited."
A private email sent by Jim Messina, for instance, then Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to the White House, to a PhRMA lobbyist back on January 15, 2010, exposed the fact that the White House had made a secret "deal" with this group. In Messina's own words, PhRMA had apparently done something that "wasn't part of our deal," which had upset the White House at the time.

Obama directly involved in PhRMA negotiations, despite having told public Senate was involved

While many people are aware of the fact that dealings were, in fact, made between the drug industry and the government over the terms of Obamacare, it is widely assumed that the U.S. Senate forged a final agreement -- this is, of course, what Obama had claimed at the time. But these new revelations expose the fact that key White House figures were actively involved in placating the demands of Big Pharma, albeit behind the scenes, while crafting the bill.
Former OHR Director Nancy Ann DeParle admitted in another uncovered email that the White House had deliberately excluded the House of Representatives in the negotiation process. And many members of Congress, as we now know, admittedly did not even know what was in the final 2,700-page bill because they did not get a chance to read it before it was quickly rushed through and passed

Respond to this report!

#2 Consumer Comment

I guess you should check your records again

AUTHOR: Ronald - ()

 Review Date: June 11, 2012

Company Name:
Remodeling - Kitchen & Bathroom
Services Performed:
* More Weight is given to a review where work has been completed.
Work Completed Date:
May 29, 2012
Hire Again:
Approximate Cost:
Home Build Year:
Description Of Work:
The location for Lang's Kitchen and Bath that we worked with is 444 East Center Avenue, Newtown, PA  18940 / Phone 215-968-5300. We worked with Lang's on the design and material selection for a master bath remodel. FYI - The $6,000 on the project was just for cabinets and tile/grout (no installation or plumbing materials)
Member Comments:
Initially things were going smoothly.  We were told that it would take 6 weeks for delivery of our cabinets and to work backwards from the date we wanted to have the project complete.  Knowing we were expecting guests the first weekend in June, we did just that.  We gave a deposit for our cabinets to be ordered on March 30, 2012.  Instead of receiving the cabinets in 6 weeks as promised, it took 7+ weeks to be delivered.  The cabinets were finally delivered on Friday, May 25th.  Our contractor opened the boxes and inspected each for damage that same day.  It was not until Monday, May 28th when we aligned the cabinets that we realized one cabinet was 3 inches shorter than it should have been.  Obviously with the Memorial Day holiday, we were unable to get in touch with anyone at Lang's.  My husband left a very detailed message that we received the wrong cabinet and would need the corrected size ASAP.  One would think that we'd receive a call immediately but of course that did not happen.   When my husband finally spoke to them, they blamed the manufacturer (Robin Wilson Home Collection).  They said they'd get in touch with the manufacturer but that it would probably take two weeks.  I would think if it was the manufacturers mistake, they would have a quicker turn-around time than two weeks.  We never received a detailed listing (or bill of lading) of what was being ordered or we may have picked-up on this in the very beginning. Needless to say, we've lost our contractor while waiting for this cabinet to arrive.   As of today, it looks like it will be more like 3 weeks to get the cabinet delivered.  The lack of transparency as well as the poor communications is the reason for my rating on this business. Although the products they sell are top of the line, the lack of responsiveness is what will keep me from being a returning customers.  In this day and age, it should not take more than 1 day to respond to an email.  On more than one occasion, I'd receive a mail that he was reaching out to his rep and should have an answer on Tuesday.  Tuesday would come and go, and still no word on the progress.  In the meantime, we were trying to keep our contractor abreast of the situation so he can schedule accordingly.   Also, after receiving our business, it was almost impossible to get them on the phone.  It seems everytime we'd call, he was always with a customer.  Needless to say, it was a very frustrating experience.
Respond to this report!

#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Other Owner Confirmed he Does Not Know Ron L

AUTHOR: John - ()

I confirmed with the other owner - Ron L was never a customer. There is absolutely no record of them ever selling anything to Ron L. Unfortunately it is difficult to remove false reports from this website. If I as owner want to remove the false report on this site, It will cost us $7500! This site itself is a ripoff. This unknown person can continue to show slander with no validation or confirmation or follow up from this website.

For any crazy person to be able to slander a company and a website to have no validation on facts, makes you think that this website is not a truthful website or a website concerned about the truth. They are only concerned about the $7500 they can get if someone has a report listed on them.  There is no way to get this report removed.

As an honest second generation business owner, still family owned since 1948, I challenge this person to come forward. This person is not a real person but some scam artist that most likely works for this website.

Anyone reading this report can call me directly. I can personally and honestly say there is no person named Ron L that has ever walked into this showroom that is from Langhorne.
Respond to this report!

#4 UPDATE Employee

False Report Unknown Person

AUTHOR: Bella - ()

Very confusing who and what this is about. We keep accurate, detailed records of the people who visit our showroom. We most certainly have accurate and detailed records of appointments that occur in our showroom. I can go back several years into our records and nowhere is there such a person. There is especially no person who was interested in a project for the amount of money this person brags about. We always take great care with our customers. We have many products that cover all price ranges. There is always something for everyone. I think quite possibly this a very confused person who isn't quite sure of where he was in the last couple of weeks. I called the other business mentioned and they also have not had any customers from langhorne by that name. Strange how easy it is to log in it a website and just start writing anything you want about anyone or anything. Great forum for psychos and madmen. To me, whoever this person is, it sounds a bit unstable and disturbed. We pride ourselves on having great relationships with our customers and always go out of our way to make everyone feel comfortable and "at home". Our home is your home. No one is ever rude. Quite the opposite. We are friendly, warm and inviting. Anyone who misinterprets that for anything other than what it is.......I don't know what to say to that.

What I would really like is for this person to backtrack through their schedule and try to remember where they actually were. Because an apology is owed to us. You can't even identify yourself or know for sure where you actually were or what kind of project you were actually inquiring about. And, how much money you were going to spend. I think the amount of money this guy was suggesting is way out of line. Or, maybe this is some kind of game he is playing and is his way of one upping his friends. But again, I have to emphasize that there was never a person by this name looking to do a project of that description for that price in our showroom ever. Perhaps this website should do a better job of screening the participants.
Respond to this report!

#5 REBUTTAL Owner of company

No customer with that name

AUTHOR: John - ()

Well, all I can say is that we have not quoted nor sold anything to anyone name Ron L in the past year so I believe this is a false report. We keep a detailed traffic report all all people that come into our business. We also looked over all quotes we gave to customers from Langhorne since January 1st 2012 and we only had 7 people that we met from Langhorne and none of those customer even close to that name - Ron L. (Note Ron L spelled Langhore incorrectly) I would gladly defend our company if I had any background on this but there is zero history. This is plainly some prankster looking to hurt local businesses by trying to slander them. It would not surprise me if it this was some fruitcake locked up in a holding tank that gets his jollies by slandering businesses just so they have someone to talk to. Since I have no background, history, or knowledge of meeting this Ron L so I cannot comment on the above happenings.

We have been in business since 1948 - we are still family owned and operated and look forward to providing the community with great service and products into the future. When someone like this posts negative feedback it hurts honest companies like us. We provide complete documentation on our jobs regarding product, materials, and installation along with full schedules start to finish on jobs. Contact us anytime if you would like more information on how we help you manage your project.
Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.