Rock Paper Garden

Do you work for this business? Unlock this free profile to update company info and see who's viewing your profile.

• By Ravi Y.

  November 27, 2023

  Landscape

  $67,000

  We engaged this company to design a rain garden and landscape for our recently renovated home. Initially, the company's owner, Mr. Dan Burke, presented himself in a friendly and professional manner. We placed our trust in him due to his inclusion in the City of Princeton's approved list of rain garden specialists. However, as the project unfolded, it became evident that Mr. Burke had a complex approach.

  In the early stages of our interaction, Mr. Burke projected an image of congeniality and professionalism, which fostered trust in our dealings with him. Consequently, we decided to engage his services. The design he provided looked promising, and his pricing was competitive compared to other quotes we had received for the project.

  However, as the project progressed, we made a troubling discovery. Mr. Burke, serving as the project's architect, had artificially inflated the measurements within the design to match the pricing of his competitors. This manipulation raised significant doubts about the integrity of the entire project.

  Upon the project's completion, our optimism gave way to disappointment. The final outcome fell short of our expectations. It was clear that Mr. Burke had procured minimal materials and used them sparingly. Furthermore, he attempted to impose additional costs on us, citing unforeseen issues during the project.

  When we raised our concerns and sought clarification, Mr. Burke adamantly refused to verify the dimensions of the patio areas. He rejected our measurements and accused us baselessly of actions we had not taken.

  In an effort to protect potential clients from a similar experience, we feel compelled to highlight the following issues:

  Material Purchase Discrepancy: Mr. Burke claimed to have purchased a specific quantity of materials over several days. However, when we independently contacted the supplier, we learned that he had purchased only six pallets, not the number he had claimed. When confronted with this inconsistency, Mr. Burke offered an explanation that one pallet had been inadvertently left on the truck, a claim he purportedly remained unaware of for months. This discrepancy raises questions about the transparency of his business practices.

  Rain Garden Cost: Mr. Burke invoiced us approximately $67,000 for the rain garden project and arranged for a city personnel inspection, declaring the project as complete. However, it came to our attention that the measurements for the rain garden had been significantly exaggerated. When we approached the city inspector to verify these measurements, we were surprised to learn that the city official had conducted only a visual inspection and had not independently verified the measurements. This revelation not only casts doubt on the accuracy of the rain garden requirement imposed on homeowners but also raises concerns about its benefits.

  Stone Selection and Charges: Mr. Burke took advantage of our preference against bluestone, unilaterally choosing a more expensive stone option. Subsequently, he imposed additional charges on us, citing the price difference between the selected stone and our supposed preference for bluestone. He then used this stone selection as a scapegoat, attributing issues during the project to a choice we had not made. This manipulation of circumstances reflects an intent to maximize gains at our expense.

  Ultimately, we found ourselves in a situation where we had paid approximately $67,000 for a project that was not worth even half that amount. The final product had numerous shortcomings, including noticeable gaps between stones and the use of sand instead of cement to finish the patios. Mr. Burke skillfully shifted blame for these deficiencies onto us, despite our lack of involvement in these critical decisions.

  In addition to the issues detailed above, it is essential to underscore Mr. Burke's lack of organization and integrity. When confronted with the consequences of his dishonesty and unscrupulous practices, he consistently responded with aggression and hostility, further compounding the challenges we faced during the project.

  In conclusion, we hope that sharing our unfortunate experience will help potential clients exercise caution when considering the services of Mr. Dan Burke and his company. Transparency, honesty, and accountability should be paramount in any business transaction, and clients deserve nothing less. We believe it is imperative to conduct thorough due diligence and demand the highest standards of professionalism and transparency in all business transactions.

  Our experience serves as a reminder of the importance of these principles. We sincerely hope that no other client will have to endure the challenges and disappointments we faced in our engagement with Mr. Burke. We share our story to guide future clients and urge ethical, reliable service providers.

  Read more