MALOTT & PETERSON ROOFING CO

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/08) */
We have only charged Mr*** for litigation support services renderedWe have never charged him for phone calls from counsel regarding scheduling or my availability to testifyOn August 25, we sent him a check for $4,which
represents the balance left on the retainer of $that he sent to us in September We believe that his lawsuit may have settled sometime during August of
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/09/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Malott & Peterson has not refunded the full balance of my retainerIt is short by $This $accounts for two charges that are not legitimate, which I described in my original complaintOne charge is for $135, which Malott & Peterson claimed was for database administrative work that was done several days after they were instructed to cease all work on the caseI can prove that this is true by providing copies of our email correspondenceEven if they had not already been told to cease all work, this charge would still be illegitimate because the task that was performed was neither needed nor approvedEven if it had been approved, it would not be subject to the $an hour expert service rate, because it was done by a clerical assistant, not the expert that I hiredThe other charge was for $60, which was supposedly for time that was needed to respond to an email and to speak with my attorney by phone for the sole purpose of scheduling the expert's testimony at the trial, which was subsequently cancelledI received this explanation for the charge in an email from Malott & Peterson, which I can provideSimple administrative tasks such as this are not billable per our contract
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/09/23) */
The response from the consumer is not factual due to his lack of understanding of the legal process in preparing for a trial or arbitrationMalott & Peterson Roofing only took direction or had communication with Mr***'s counselHe has never been charged for work done by a clerical assistantIf necessary I will have Mr***'s legal counsel explain this to the Revdex.com
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 14, 2015/10/07) */
The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The facts of this matter do not require an understanding of the legal processThey are not legal in natureMy claim against Malott & Peterson Roofing is that (1) they charged $for a service that was not needed and did so several days after they were told to cease all activities on my case, and (2) they charged $for time that they spent on the phone for administrative purposes, which our contract does not allowRegarding the first matter, I can provide clear written evidence that the charge was not legitimateRegarding the second matter, they are claiming that the charge is not for administrative work, but I can show that they themselves described it as a call in which they and my attorney determined the order in which they would appear as a witness at the trial, which is a scheduling matter that involved no expert roofing expertiseThey have offered to have my attorney explain this matter to the Revdex.com, but this is a hollow offerMy attorney may not discuss the case, and even if he could, he has no knowledge of the first charge, because he was not working for me at the time, and nothing that he could say about the second charge could change the fact that the phone call was for administrative purposes
Rather than continuing this back-and-forth between Mallot & Peterson Roofing and me with the Revdex.com in between, if you provide me with a way to submit evidence of my claims, this matter could be settled without further interaction