CENTURY GROVE HOMES BUILDER TERRIBLE LOUSY BAD!! poor workmanship-terrible customer service-cuts corners-poor quality-beware- Richmond Hill Maple Brampton Vaughan Ontario

This builder is the worst company (not just builders) I have dealt with ..ever.

If you ever make the mistake of buying from them you have to write down everything and send it to Tarion on the spot. They do not honor PDI list since it is not enforceable by Tarion even if you are missing stairs or ceramic floors in your kitchen. I had leaking washrooms and uncovered floors for 4 months. Only when I filed for conciliation the first time, 6 months after I moved in, this is when they moved to fix fatal problems. I called them one day and threatened to call police due to personal injuries that happen in my house due to the lack of work. It took them Hr to address the unsafe areas. So, why they did not do that upfront. Because they can.

Unless you have lots of time and patience or unless you are a construction expert, have a great lawyer and highly familiar with Tarion and their process DO NOT buy from Century Grove.

Work quality, Zero

Communication, Zero

After sales service, Zero

They were ranked the lowest in the area by JD Power and Associates in 2008 and 2009, 2010 will follow

Here are some other links for your review

http://www.newhomesreviews.com/Allsendreviews/Century-Grove-Homes-Rating.php

http://businesscenter.jdpower.com/Jdpacontent/corpcomm/news/content/releases/pdf/2009144-cgta.pdf

Workmanship is ok, nothing exceptional. But they do include lot of features in their base price. But one thing they miss the big time is the customer service. It is really bad. I have been promised numerous time on things from before closing to over a year after move in, but still won't deliver. Of course, some items CANNOT be done after the closing or dry wall is up !!! So, I am stuck with what it is, which pissed me off as I have been trying to follow up with them every single week before closing !!! You are lucky if you find the site super AND have him or his staff finished what they promised !!! Customer Care department does not accept email but only fax even they do have the email address. Come on, it is a computer world now, email can better track the time and date. Maybe that's what they don't want to have............. A couple guys sent from "customer care" department were really bad in attitude. Talked to us like we owe them or we were begging them to do what they are supposed to do !!! Hello, we are your customers, we paid over half a million to buy something from you, can we expect some kind of customer service? I am a first time home buyer, not sure if it is standard in the home building industry, but we definitely are not happy with their customer services !!! Even their quality is not bad and they include lot of features more than other big builder like Monarch, but the bad customer service makes the overall experience not good......... Unfortunately, I don't know where else to complain other than here. It will be useless to email or phone Century Grove Homes Customer Care Department to complain ...........

WELL THIS BUILDER FINALLY SENT A TRADESMAN TO FIX OUR PORCH. THERE GOING TO RESURFACE IT WITH NO GUARANTEE. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A NICE IDEA IF SOMEONE PICKED THE PHONE UP RETURNED A CALL AND SAID. ' WE SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE THERE IN 2 DAYS 2 WEEKS 2 MONTHS OR NEXT YEAR. BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. INSTEAD OUT OF NO WHERE KINGCON CONCRETE SHOWS UP. PEOPLE HAVE TOLD US THAT PARGING THE PROBLEM IS JUST A QUICK FIX AS 12 MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD AFTER ONE BAD WINTER(NO SALT WILL BE USED ON THIS PORCH) THAT IT MIGHT JUST ALL FLAKE OFF. HAD THE WORK BEEN DONE PROPERLY IN THE FIRST PLACE NONE OF THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY. BUT CENTURY GROVE SAW TO IT TO SEND SOMEONE OUT. SO THEY DESERVE CREDIT HERE. WHETHER THE WORKMANSHIP REMEDIES THE PROBLEM...TIME WILL TELL. THIS PROBLEM WITH MY CONCRETE IS PREVALENT IN MANY OTHER HOMES ON MY STREET BUT MOST FIRST TIME OWNERS ARE NOT AWARE OF IT..UNTIL IT STARTS TO CRACK OR CHIP. OUR PORCHES LOOK LIKE CRAP AT THE MOMENT. CUT MARKS CHIPPING CRACKING ETC.

I

We were promised warranty work on our home than they took their time and never got back to us. than when we called and wrote, all our inquires went unanswered and they ignored us as if we were calling too late and the warranty is no longer valid. We even contacted their head manager their too. We figure they did this on purpose because they have seen all the negative feedback we posted along with the others. Had we not hired a certified building inspector they would have left us with illegal insulation height as in not enough. A certified building inspector caught this. They left srews out of main joists instead of the correct amount they just decided to leave a coupld out on every other connection. They have fixed the insulation (14 months later) and added correct number of screws to joist brackets. We wonder how much money did we lost all winter as the insulation was below Tarion guideline.

We plan on posting a video of the poor workmanship online so that there's no discrepancy here as to the above noted. We found law suits but this one caught our eye. Its unfortunate to have to post this but we have been waiting for over a year now and have all our proper correspondence has gone ignored!?!?

We will find many other law suits and keep posting them until they wake up.

After finding out we posted they tried to belittle us like we were the problem. By posting a rebuttle. I think it would have been easier to pick the phone up and call us and remedy our problem but that was not the case.

We just want a home free of defects let alone how it was delivered and serviced.
We are still in shock as they promised and told us the garage would be poured as we had cars to store. When we tried to close the garage wasnt poured so they siad we will have it done in 3 days. We were Ok with that and thought that was reasonable until they tacked on over $700 of interest charges for closing 3 days late! Can you believe that? Talk about nerve. This after they delivered our home months after it was promised from the original down payment (they told us they had permit problems-fine we were patient. Did we charge or ask them for interest while they held over $30,000 of our money? Not penny was paid to us and charging us $700 interest for 3 days after the close was over the top!!

But due to the great legal paper they set up that you sign, their covered on this kind of stuff. As for being fair and diligent, thats another story.

Here are the real Facts from 2006 JD power and associates based on 1000 point scale. Century grove scored measily well below industry average with only 535 out of 1000 points! Judge for yourself. We would rather be happy than have to post this kind of stuff but its just our experience as others as well as the truth. So do your homework and buy from a builder that scores well.

J.D. Power and Associates
2006 Canadian New-Home Builder
CustomerSatisfaction Study
SM
Overall Satisfaction Index Ranking
Greater Toronto Area
(Based on a 1,000-point scale)


Mattamy -830
Tribute
Great Gulf
Ballantry
Cachet
Arista
Baywood
Brookfield
Monarch
GTA Market Average
Paradise
Greenpark
Fieldgate
H & R
Aspen Ridge
Fernbrook
Primont
Sundial
Century Grove-535
National
Conservatory Group
Kaitlin Group


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matire de permis


2715-ONWHPA-Claim
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE CORPORATION
DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ONTARIO
NEW HOME WARRANTIES PLAN ACT
TO DISALLOW A CLAIM
TRIBUNAL: SIMON DANN, Presiding Member

APPEARANCES: MICHAEL OSTROFF, Agent, representing the Applicant
ELLIE CHOI, Counsel, representing the Respondent, Tarion
Warranty Corporation
MICHAEL OREN, Agent, representing the Added Party, Verni
Estates Inc.

DATE OF HEARING: June 6, 2005 Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND:

This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") by the Applicant from a
decision of Tarion Warranty Corporation ("Tarion") as set out in a written decision dated
November 5, 2004, which denied the Applicant's claims for compensation under the
Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (the Act). The Applicant's appeal essentially
relates to a complaint respecting their claim for a breach of warranty. The Applicant's
appeal is based on Section 14(3) of the Act, which reads as follows:

14.(3) Subject to the regulations, an owner of a home is entitled to receive payment out
of the guarantee fund for damages resulting from a breach of warranty if,
(a) the person became the owner of the home through receiving a transfer of
title to it or through the substantial performance by a builder of a contract to
construct the home on land owned by the person; and
(b) the person has a cause of action against the vendor of the builder, as the
case may be, for damages resulting from the breach of warranty.


2
EXHIBITS

1. Decision Letter from Tarion, dated November 5, 2004.
2. Notice of Appeal received at the Tribunal December 3, 2004, filed by the Applicant.
3. Respondents Book of Documents.
4. Century Grove Letter of Notification (agreement re repairs) 1 page.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

The Respondents counsel, Ms. Choi, advised that no disclosure documents had been
received. The Applicants agent, Mr. Ostroff, advised that he would be relying upon
documents already in the record through the Respondents Book of Documents and that
he might also be introducing some medical reports and he expected that these could be
objected to but that could occur at the time of introduction.

The Parties were asked to confirm that, as all the items listed in the Tarion Decision
Letter had been originally noted as warranted and that this was not in dispute, the
focus of the hearing was upon the issue of access as noted in the Prehearing Order.

While Ms. Choi agreed, Mr. Ostroff stated there was another item he intended to bring
forward. Ms. Choi objected and stated that other items were not contained in the Notice
of Appeal.


THE EVIDENCE:

Opening Statements

Mr. Ostroff stated the Applicants issues were as follows:
he wanted all repair items completed at one time to minimize any inconvenience;
he wanted the builder to pay for accommodation costs while he and his wife were
out of the house during the repair work period.

Mr. Ostroff stated that the Applicant would also be testifying about his medical condition.

The Respondents Counsel stated that the appeal was limited to the items listed in
Tarions Decision Letter and which formed the basis of the appeal.

Ms. Choi submitted that the issue was about the expenses the Applicant felt he would
incur while the repairs were being done and that he wanted to be reimbursed for those
expenses. It was Tarions position the Applicant was being unreasonable as there was
no evidence that the repairs required unreasonable work. She added the compensation
3
request by the Applicant is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and that the appeal
should be dismissed.


Evidence for the Applicant

The Applicant

The witness testified that the decision letter (Exhibit 3, Tab 22) only contained 8 items
while the Warranty Assessment Report (Exhibit 3, Tab 9) contained 12 warranted items.
A review of the items listed in the decision letter and additional ones from the Warranty
Assessment Report showed:

Warranty Assessment Report
Decision Letter
No. 21 - The entire room frames, baseboards and
quarter rounds need sanding, caulking and painting
- WARRANTED

not included
No. 38 - All frames, baseboards and quarter rounds
need to be sanded and re-painted
- NOT WARRANTED - same as No. 21

not included
No. 55 - NEW-Bricks at front entrance need power
washing from left over mortar residue
- WARRANTED

not included
No. 41 - Closet door for bedroom above garage
has inside wall of the closet damaged where the
shelving unit was moved
- WARRANTED

not included
No. 39 - All inside and outside corners of walls
need re-taping, re-plastering, sanding, and
repainting
- WARRANTED
not included
No. 40 - Bedroom above garage has floor out of
level towards the windows
- WARRANTED
not included

The witness testified that after he received the Decision Letter, he asked the Tarion
representative, Mr. Ken Holtrop, about the missing items and was told by Mr. Holtrop
that the letter would be redone.

The witness said there were 55 items on the Warranty Assessment Report of December
23, 2003 (Exhibit 3, Tab 9) and if the repair work for the other items had been done he
could not have withheld access.

He confirmed there had been one occasion when the builders site supervisor had come
to the house at 6:30 P.M. to tell him a trade serviceman was coming the next morning.
4
Since he was unable to stay home on such short notice, the witness said he could not
provide access.

The witness agreed work had been done on the inside of the house because the builder
had keys for 6 months. He testified the work done so far had been light work but what
remained would create a lot of dust because it involved sanding.

The witness added he had to cancel the September work appointment because his wife
had lung cancer and she had to go for medical appointments at that time. He said he
also has cancer and he has been going for chemotherapy since May 3rd.

The witness said he had an agreement with the builder (Exhibit 4), which was supposed
to see all the repair work done by the end of the year 2003. He said this included work
on the main floor and 2nd floor of the house but he objected to the way he believed the
builder would do the work.

The witness explained that 8 of the work items were on the 1st floor while the other 4
were on the 2nd floor and theyre going to do the work piece by piece ... one contractor
cannot do everything. It was his belief that the work would take over a month for 8
items and then another 15 days for the additional 4 items.

The witness said he had some understanding of the work involved because he has
worked in construction for 30 years on both metal and wood railings.

On cross-examination, the witness acknowledged he had not asked for a revised
Decision Letter in writing. He confirmed it had been mentioned at the prehearing but a
new letter was not requested at that time.

The witness said he wanted to be compensated for his outside accommodation costs as
well as furniture moving and storage costs while the repair work was being done. He
agreed he had no complaints about any other repair work the builder had completed.

When asked if he disagreed with the method of repair proposed by the builder, the
witness confirmed that he disagreed and because he disagreed he had not allowed the
proposed work to be carried out.

The witness confirmed he had written a letter to the builder in November 2003 (Exhibit
3, Tab 5) stating he had refused to give the site super the key to the house so the
tradesmen could come in during the day to do their work.

The witness stated he had asked the builder for a repair work schedule but never
received one though he did receive a letter in which the builder offered two options for
the work to be done (Exhibit 3, Tab 15).

Neither of the options was accepted and the witness replied by letter (Exhibit 3, Tab 16)
advising that he would contact a renovating contracting company who will provide a
5
quote but he then said he did not get any quotes. The witness did agree that the builder
never said he would do the repairs.

When asked by Ms. Choi if in his letter of July 26, 2004 (Exhibit 3, Tab 19), he was
saying to the builder that until they gave him what he wanted with regard to the work
done at one time, and accommodation costs reimbursed, he would not allow the work to
be done. The witness agreed that was his meaning.


Evidence for the Respondent

Ken Holtrop

The witness for the Respondent was Ken Holtrop, a Field Claims warranty
representative with Tarion Warranty Corporation. Mr. Holtrop said he had 10 years of
experience with Tarion and has done at least 2,000 home inspections.

Mr. Holtrop first met the Applicant at the time of the conciliation request. Mr. Holtrop
carried out the conciliation inspection and subsequently wrote the Decision Letter of
November 5, 2004 denying the Applicants claim.

The essential points of Mr. Holtrops testimony were as follows:

he knew of the letter of agreement between the builder and the Applicant (Exhibit
4) but the scope of that agreement was greater than the conciliation report
results;
that item 38 from the conciliation report was essentially the same as item 21 and
in completing item 21, the other item would also be taken care of;
he tried to help the homeowner by asking him to obtain quotes for lodging and
received a quotation in reply (Exhibit 3, Tab 14). While he said he would try to
take it up with the builder, it was really up to the builder because these issues
were not covered in the warranty program;
he had various contacts with the homeowner but because the builder was
prepared to do the work and there were no complaints about any work already
completed, there was nothing he could do;
it was his view that several of the 8 items listed in the Decision Letter could have
been done individually without generating an unreasonable amount of dust,
especially for items 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 while items 3, 4, 5 could involve dust during the
repair work.
Mr. Holtrop said the homeowner objected to the method planned for the drywall repair
but if there were any problems with the workmanship he had the option of requesting
6
reinspection for up to one year from the date of the completion as he was essentially
getting an extended warranty.

When asked what he considered could be a fair value cash settlement for the work
remaining, Mr. Holtrop suggested the amount of $2,500. He added that this had been
previously mentioned but the homeowner considered it insufficient.

Mr. Holtrop testified that he had not wanted to issue a Decision Letter because the
items noted were warranted but as the homeowner tied the claims to the request for
compensation for accommodation costs, the only option he had was for an appeal to
occur on the basis of access.

As to the other items, which are not in the Decision Letter but were discussed, Mr.
Holtrop said there was an option for a supplementary decision letter. However, it was
his opinion the homeowner should first proceed with the appeal.

When asked in cross-examination about why the additional items were not in the
Decision Letter, Mr. Holtrop said that typically we do not go on appeal on warrantable
items. He said he also did not receive any requests in writing and without that he was
unable to proceed.

When asked about Item 38 (Exhibit 3, Tab 9), Mr. Holtrop said that item should also
have been warranted.

In redirect, Mr. Holtrop gave estimates for the values of repairing the complaint items
(Exhibit 3, Tab 9) as follows:
Item 39 - $500 to $1000
Item 40 - $250
Item 41 - $150

Items 21 and 38 were said to be the same and part of the $2,500 estimate previously
stated by Mr.. Holtrop.


Michael Oren

Michael Oren is the Customer Care Manager for the builder, Verni Estates Inc., Century
Grove Homes, and the Added Party. Mr. Oren previously worked with Beaver Hall
Homes. His education is as a civil engineer and he attended Nottingham Trent
University in England.

Mr. Oren testified that he deals with cases going to conciliation and his letter of
November 25, 2003, to Tarion (Ontario New Home Warranty Program, Exhibit 3, Tab 4),
reviewed his efforts to arrange repair work at the Applicants home.

7
Mr. Oren said he first became involved with the Applicant upon receiving a request for
refund of dry cleaning costs resulting from repair work dust as well as compensation for
overnight accommodation during the repair work. Mr. Oren said he refused both
requests and was told not to come back until we provide accommodation (Exhibit 3,
Tab 4).

Regarding other items which did not have dust issues, Mr. Oren testified that these
were rectified through direct contacts without any real scheduling problems. He added
that while it was easy to schedule his own service crews, the outside trades were
different and they could not always be organized to meet the homeowners schedule.
That was why sometimes there was short notice for access.

Mr. Oren testified that he wrote the homeowner on February 16, 2004 (Exhibit 3, Tab
15) offering to either separate the remaining work into sections or to try and do them all
at one time as quickly as possible.

In response to the homeowners reply of March 29, 2004 (Exhibit 3, Tab 16), which
stated that the work should all be done at one time, Mr. Oren stated he wrote back that
the repairs could be done the last week of April 2004 (Exhibit 3, Tab 17). The
homeowner was asked to write and advise if this was acceptable to him.

On April 28, 2004, Mr. Oren wrote to Tarion (Exhibit 3, Tab 18) and advised he had met
with the homeowner and they agreed to postpone the repair work until it would be more
convenient but that the homeowner should give him at least a few weeks notice to
organize the tradespeople.

Mr. Oren testified that the homeowner had been offered a cash settlement to take care
of the repairs on his own or receive a reimbursement of up to five days of outside
accommodation costs at various times as repairs were being carried out.

On cross-examination, Mr. Oren confirmed that he had previously said all the work
could be done in 20 days. When asked about the sanding component, Mr. Oren said
that could be done in 2 to 3 days.


Closing Statements

Mr. Ostroff submitted that access was never denied and the fact that 43 items had been
repaired showed that access for the builder had been offered and was made available.

Mr. Ostroff submitted that the main issue is medical based on the medical conditions of
the Applicant and his wife. He submitted that it was unreasonable to expect the
Applicant to be at home for 20 days while the work is done and while dust conditions
were present.

8
This is why the Applicant is requesting accommodation costs as well as costs for
moving and storage of furnishings to keep them out of the way and protected from the
dust.

In summary, Mr. Ostroff submitted that the Applicant wanted the home to be in as clean
a condition as it would be before work started and that there should also be a separate
agreement for all the items being repaired.

In the alternative or in lieu of the work to be done, the Applicant would be prepared to
accept a cash settlement in the amount of $20,000.


In closing for the Respondent, Ms. Choi submitted the following points:
of the original 55 items listed in the Warranty Assessment Report dated
December 23, 2003 (Exhibit 3, Tab 9), 43 items were resolved, including the
ones which were deemed to be not warranted;
there are 2 categories of access issues:
1. the first is comprised of the following:
i. the methods of repairs as discussed in Exhibit 3, Tab 4;
ii. the Applicants refusal to allow work to be done by service people who
called at the home, because the Applicant wanted the work done
differently than what was intended by the service crew (Exhibit 3, Tab
6);
iii. the Applicants statement that he wanted the work done all at once or
he would obtain an outside quote (Exhibit 3, Tab 16);
iv. the Applicants repeated statement that he wants everything done at
once (Exhibit 3, Tab 19).
2. the second is for accommodation and additional expenses or costs that
the Applicant said he would incur during the repair work period;
the Tarion mandate is specifically found in Section 14 sub-sections 3 and 7
regarding damages and that work can be performed or arranged for in lieu of
damages;
that if the Applicant has had no complaints about any other repair work but
disputes the method planned by the builder then he has other options outside of
the Tribunal.

Ms. Choi submitted that the Applicant had not suffered any damages and the builder is
willing to do the work. Since the Applicant has refused the builder access to carry out
the repairs, the Applicants appeal should be dismissed.

9


Case law reviewed by Ms. Choi included:

Abnash Nijjor, C.R.A.T., August 6, 1993 and Mistry (Re), [1999] O.C.R.A.T. No.
140, in which the Applicants sought to be compensated for accommodation costs
while repair work was carried out. In both matters, the Tribunal disallowed the
claims on the basis that there is no statutory authority under which the Tribunal
could make such an order.
In Schollenberg (Re), [1999] O.C.R.A.T.D. No. 65, the Applicants disputed the
builders proposed method of repair and refused access on the basis that the
builders method would cause him serious health problems. The Tribunal found
that there was no medical evidence to support the health complaint and as the
Applicants did not allow the builder to make the repairs in accordance with
Section 14(3) of the Act, so as to mitigate their damages, the claim was
disallowed.
In Migliano (Re), [1994] O.C.R.A.T.D. No. 137, the Tribunal considered the
Applicants appeal to be premature because the builder had offered to carry out a
repair or provide compensation. The Tribunal also considered that if the
Applicants chose to allow the remedial work to occur and considered it
unacceptable, they still retained the right of appeal. The Tribunal ruled to deny
the claim on the basis that the Applicants refused the builders offer to repair or
compensate and therefore found no breach of warranty.

The Applicants agent, Mr. Ostroff, responded by stating that the monetary offer was
considered insufficient and rejected,


APPLICABLE LAW:

Section 14 of the Act states:
(1) Subject to the regulations, a person who has entered into a contract to purchase a
home from a vendor is entitled to receive payment out of the guarantee fund for the
amount that the person paid to the vendor as a deposit to be credited to the purchase
price under the contract on closing if,
(a) the person has exercised a statutory right to rescind the contract before closing; or
(b) the person has a cause of action against the vendor resulting from the fact that title
to the home has not been transferred to the person because,
(i) the vendor has gone into bankruptcy, or
(ii) the vendor has fundamentally breached the contract
(2) Subject to the regulations, an owner of land who has entered into a contract with a
builder for the construction of a home on the land and who has a cause of action against
the builder for damages resulting from the builders failure to substantially perform the
10
contract, is entitled to receive payment out of the guarantee fund of the amount by which
the amount paid by the owner to the builder under the contract exceeds the value of the
work and materials supplied to the owner under the contract.
(3) Subject to the regulations, an owner of a home is entitled to receive payment out of
the guarantee fund for damages resulting from a breach of warranty if,
(a) the person became the owner of the home through receiving a transfer of title to it or
through the substantial performance by a builder of a contract to construct the home on
land owned by the person; and
(b) the person has a cause of action against the vendor or the builder, as the case may
be, for damages resulting from the breach of warranty
(4) Subject to the regulations, an owner who suffers damage because of a major
structural defect mentioned in clause 13 (1) (b) is entitled to receive payment out of the
guarantee fund for the cost of the remedial work required to correct the major structural
defect if the owner makes a claim within four years after the warranty expires or such
longer time under such conditions as are prescribed.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a contract is substantially performed if it is
substantially performed within the meaning given by subsection 2 (1) of the Construction
Lien Act
(6) In assessing the amount for which a person is entitled to receive payment out of the
guarantee fund under this section, the Corporation shall take into consideration any
benefit, compensation, indemnity payable, or the value of work and materials furnished to
the person from any source
(7) The Corporation may perform or arrange for the performance of any work in lieu
of or in mitigation of damages claimed under this section.


ANALYSIS:

The issues in this appeal are whether there was a fundamental breach of warranty by
the builder and whether there were any damages suffered.

Based on all the evidence presented through the hearing, it is clear that the builder
made reasonable efforts to carry out the remaining repairs but because the Applicant
was in disagreement with the manner in which those repairs were to be carried out he
denied access.

There was no evidence to support the Applicants claim that he and his wife had
medical conditions to prevent the repair work to be carried out. While this is not to say
that the Applicants do not have any medical conditions, the fact is that no evidence was
disclosed in advance of the hearing or presented in the hearing to substantiate that
claim.

In order for a compensation claim to succeed on the basis of a breach of warranty
claim, an applicant must also show damages. In this instance, the Applicant failed to
11
present any evidence to that effect and therefore the Tribunal has nothing upon which to
consider that any damages occurred.

The Tribunal considers the evidence of Mr. Orens correspondence as well as
confirmation by the Applicant that the Applicant failed to allow the builder to perform the
repairs unless he was provided compensation for accommodation during the period of
repair.

In summary, it is clear the builder sought to complete the repairs but was refused
access to do so unless he provided the Applicant with compensation for outside
accommodation costs. Beyond that, there is no evidence of any damages suffered by
the Applicant that could be seen as being relevant to the Acts definition of breach of
warranty.

However, as warrantable items remain to be attended to and as there may well be some
animosity between the Parties, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Holtrops estimates for the cost
of repairs and directs Tarion to provide the Applicant with a cash basis settlement so
that he may resolve the repair work to his own satisfaction. The amount to be paid to
the Applicant is as follows:

Items noted in Decision Letter:
$2,500.00
Items noted in Exhibit 3, Tab 9
Item 39 $1,000.00
Item 40 $ 250.00
Item 41 $ 150.00
sub-total $3,900.00
10% contingency 390.00
Total $4,290.00
retail tax purchase allowance $ 643.50

Total cash settlement amount: $4,933.50

With regard to Item 39, the Tribunal preferred the maximum amount estimated by Mr.
Holtrop to allow for the uncertainty suggested by the fact that Mr. Holtrop estimated
such a range rather than a more specific amount as for the other items. In addition, a
contingency allowance has been added as Mr. Holtrop was only able to provide
estimates based on his own experience.


12
DECISION:

Pursuant to the authority vested in it under section 16(3) of the Ontario New Home
Warranties Plan Act, the Tribunal orders that with respect to the Applicants claims,
Tarion shall forthwith pay to the Applicant a total of $4,933.50 in full satisfaction of such
claim.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL



_________________________
Simon Dann, Presiding Member
RELEASED: July 7, 2005

File name: 2715.onhwpa.Claim

The hearing was recorded. Transcripts can be made available at your
expense. The period to appeal a decision to the Superior Court of Justice
or Divisional Court is 30 calendar days from the date of release of the
decision. Please arrange to pick up your Exhibits within 30 days after that
period has passed. The Tribunal requires seven days notice prior to
releasing Exhibits.

While someone posted how great the service is at Century grove. Heres staright facts not just based on our experience. Maybe someone is satisfied, thats possible. Average industry score according to JD power and associates is 664. THATS THE AVERAGE IN OTHER WORDS... 50%. J.D. Power and Associates CENTURY GROVE SCORED 535. WELL BELOW AVERAGE. No one is or wants to even call for warranty on a new home. For almost 500 k one would expect perfection. What ends up happening is that it takes numerous calls to get them to fix what needs to be addressed. Lets face it a lot of their work is subbed out. And its hard to be perfect but you should stand behind what you do and fix it promptly.

The more time lags the closer to warranty expiration, hence not having to address the issues at hand. There are lawsuits we found online that went to court and the owner was successful in his pursuit. Lets face it no one want to invest time and energy posting negative concerns, but when you spend big bucks on a home you expect to be looked after. Heres the report below from JD power and associates judge for yourself. Do the math. Century Grove was 19.5% below average!? So I would guess to say there are many more Mr. Unhappy's.


2006 Canadian New-Home Builder
CustomerSatisfaction Study
SM
Overall Satisfaction Index Ranking
Greater Toronto Area

806
746
738
724
701
698
621
619
605
544
540
537
536
535
529
508
5635
664
664
708
Tribute
Great Gulf
Ballantry
Cachet
Arista
Baywood
Brookfield
Monarch
GTA Market Average -664
Paradise
Greenpark
Fieldgate
H & R
Aspen Ridge
Fernbrook
Primont
Sundial
Century Grove -535
National
Conservatory Group
Kaitlin Group

While someone posted how great the service is at Century grove. Heres staright facts not just based on our experience. Maybe someone is satisfied, thats possible. Average industry score according to JD power and associates is 664. THATS THE AVERAGE IN OTHER WORDS... 50%. J.D. Power and Associates CENTURY GROVE SCORED 535. WELL BELOW AVERAGE. No one is or wants to even call for warranty on a new home. For almost 500 k one would expect perfection. What ends up happening is that it takes numerous calls to get them to fix what needs to be addressed. Lets face it a lot of their work is subbed out. And its hard to be perfect but you should stand behind what you do and fix it promptly.

The more time lags the closer to warranty expiration, hence not having to address the issues at hand. There are lawsuits we found online that went to court and the owner was successful in his pursuit. Lets face it no one want to invest time and energy posting negative concerns, but when you spend big bucks on a home you expect to be looked after. Heres the report below from JD power and associates judge for yourself. Do the math. Century Grove was 19.5% below average!? So I would guess to say there are many more Mr. Unhappy's.


2006 Canadian New-Home Builder
CustomerSatisfaction Study
SM
Overall Satisfaction Index Ranking
Greater Toronto Area

806
746
738
724
701
698
621
619
605
544
540
537
536
535
529
508
5635
664
664
708
Tribute
Great Gulf
Ballantry
Cachet
Arista
Baywood
Brookfield
Monarch
GTA Market Average -664
Paradise
Greenpark
Fieldgate
H & R
Aspen Ridge
Fernbrook
Primont
Sundial
Century Grove -535
National
Conservatory Group
Kaitlin Group

While someone posted how great the service is at Century grove. Heres staright facts not just based on our experience. Maybe someone is satisfied, thats possible. Average industry score according to JD power and associates is 664. THATS THE AVERAGE IN OTHER WORDS... 50%. J.D. Power and Associates CENTURY GROVE SCORED 535. WELL BELOW AVERAGE. No one is or wants to even call for warranty on a new home. For almost 500 k one would expect perfection. What ends up happening is that it takes numerous calls to get them to fix what needs to be addressed. Lets face it a lot of their work is subbed out. And its hard to be perfect but you should stand behind what you do and fix it promptly.

The more time lags the closer to warranty expiration, hence not having to address the issues at hand. There are lawsuits we found online that went to court and the owner was successful in his pursuit. Lets face it no one want to invest time and energy posting negative concerns, but when you spend big bucks on a home you expect to be looked after. Heres the report below from JD power and associates judge for yourself. Do the math. Century Grove was 19.5% below average!? So I would guess to say there are many more Mr. Unhappy's.


2006 Canadian New-Home Builder
CustomerSatisfaction Study
SM
Overall Satisfaction Index Ranking
Greater Toronto Area

806
746
738
724
701
698
621
619
605
544
540
537
536
535
529
508
5635
664
664
708
Tribute
Great Gulf
Ballantry
Cachet
Arista
Baywood
Brookfield
Monarch
GTA Market Average -664
Paradise
Greenpark
Fieldgate
H & R
Aspen Ridge
Fernbrook
Primont
Sundial
Century Grove -535
National
Conservatory Group
Kaitlin Group

While someone posted how great the service is at Century grove. Heres staright facts not just based on our experience. Maybe someone is satisfied, thats possible. Average industry score according to JD power and associates is 664. THATS THE AVERAGE IN OTHER WORDS... 50%. J.D. Power and Associates CENTURY GROVE SCORED 535. WELL BELOW AVERAGE. No one is or wants to even call for warranty on a new home. For almost 500 k one would expect perfection. What ends up happening is that it takes numerous calls to get them to fix what needs to be addressed. Lets face it a lot of their work is subbed out. And its hard to be perfect but you should stand behind what you do and fix it promptly.

The more time lags the closer to warranty expiration, hence not having to address the issues at hand. There are lawsuits we found online that went to court and the owner was successful in his pursuit. Lets face it no one want to invest time and energy posting negative concerns, but when you spend big bucks on a home you expect to be looked after. Heres the report below from JD power and associates judge for yourself. Do the math. Century Grove was 19.5% below average!? So I would guess to say there are many more Mr. Unhappy's.


2006 Canadian New-Home Builder
CustomerSatisfaction Study
SM
Overall Satisfaction Index Ranking
Greater Toronto Area

806
746
738
724
701
698
621
619
605
544
540
537
536
535
529
508
5635
664
664
708
Tribute
Great Gulf
Ballantry
Cachet
Arista
Baywood
Brookfield
Monarch
GTA Market Average -664
Paradise
Greenpark
Fieldgate
H & R
Aspen Ridge
Fernbrook
Primont
Sundial
Century Grove -535
National
Conservatory Group
Kaitlin Group

WHILE THIS BUILDER IS ON MARS AND CLIENTS ARE FROM EARTH. WE MUST SAY...THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING...AND OUR ATLEAST STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE TO CORRECT TERRIBLE WORKMANSHIP. LETS FACE IT...ALL THE WORK IS SUBBED OUT..BUT HAVING SAID THAT ..THERE NAME STILL GOES ON THE FINISHED PRODUCT. SO ON SCALE OF 1 TO 10
BUILD QUALITY AND ATTENTION TO DETAIL IS STILL 5 SERVICE WAS 1 NOW COMING UP TO 6...HUGE IMPROVEMENT. LETS SEE IF THEY CAN WAKE UP AND REALISE...THEY MIGHT BE A RICH COMPANY BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO LOOK AFTER THE LITTLE GUYS. THANKS FOR TRYING TO BE BETTER...STILL A LONG ROAD..BUT BETTER.

After reading the negative report filed on Century Grove Homes, I was not only disappointed but saddened with this consumers report. I too have recently moved into my second Century Grove Home and have only praise with this family run business. Not only were they accomodating and flexible with changes in the home, but the quality of workmanship was excellent! I have also referred many of my friends and family who are all quite happy!

Let's face it, when purchasing a new home there will always be minor issues, if you think that the home will be perfect from any builder than you are sadly mistaken and should not be buying a new home. Perhaps Mr. Unhappy who filed the report should stick to buying re sale homes!

We too were delayed in closing, however Mr. Unhappy failed to mention that there were issues with the sewers and registration of the land that were not the fault of Century Grove. There were numerous other builders who also delayed in the same area. It was actually the efficiency of Century Grove that allowed us to move in prior to other homeowners who bought from other builders.

I truly feel that some people like Mr Unhappy just love to complain and have nothing else to do with their time. We had no problems in dealing with customer service as we did not harass the department as some others feel the need to do.
The opinion of Mr. Unhappy as I like to call him is just that....an opinion...which in no way should diminish the reputation of Century Grove Homes. I truly feel if Mr. Unhappy would spend less time complaining he might actually be heard!