Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:28/07/2023

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  UnansweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Please refer to Supporting Document

  Customer Answer

  Date: 28/07/2023

  I am writing to bring a serious matter to your attention concerning a dispute with a
  web development company, Plentitud (currently known as Pragmatic).
  
  In November 2022, I entered into a contract with this company for the development
  of a website for my business. We mutually agreed upon the scope of the project and
  the associated costs, resulting in the generation of an initial estimate (estimate
  #***) amounting to CAD $8085. As per our agreement, I paid a 50% deposit and
  later an additional 25% deposit for the work to proceed.
  
  However, during the design phase, it was established that some functionalities
  outlined in my requirement document were not included in the first estimate. To
  address this issue, a second estimate (estimate #***) was provided in March 2023,
  with a total cost of CAD $6825. This second estimate was supposed to be
  supplementary to the first estimate, covering additional features. I proceeded to pay
  a 50% deposit for this.
  
  Regrettably, a serious dispute has arisen. The company now asserts that the second
  estimate replaced the first one. They argue that because the remaining balance for
  the first estimate was not paid, it expired, and the functionalities outlined within were
  no longer part of the agreement.
  
  This interpretation contradicts my understanding that the second estimate was
  meant to supplement the first, incorporating additional features not covered in the
  original agreement. This misunderstanding was further compounded by an email
  communication where the company explicitly incorporated the 25% deposit paid
  towards the first estimate into the deposit for the second estimate without any
  demand for me to complete the payment for the first estimate (Appendix 1 & email attachment).
  
  
  Details of the Transactions and Nature of the Dispute
  
  Date of the Transaction: The initial agreement for the project, under estimate ***,
  was made on 23rd November 2022, with a 50% deposit paid on the same day. A
  further 25% deposit was paid on 16th January 2023 when the design was nearly
  finalized. A second estimate (***) was provided on 16th March 2023, for which a
  50% deposit was paid on 28th March 2023.
  
  The Amount of Money Paid to the Business: Initially, I agreed to a first estimate
  (***) for which I paid a 50% deposit, followed by a 25% deposit. The second 25%
  deposit of CAD $1925 from estimate *** was refunded to me on 21st March 2023.
  The company decided to categorize the first 50% deposit of *** as the web design
  fee, even though our original estimate *** had no breakdown between design and
  development costs. Accepting this new arrangement, I then agreed to a second
  estimate (***) of CAD $6825, solely for web development, and paid a 50% deposit.
  
  
  What the Business Committed to Provide: The business committed to deliver web
  development services as specified in the first estimate (***), supplemented by
  additional functionalities outlined in the second estimate (***).
  
  
  The Nature of the Dispute: The dispute centers on the company's claim that core
  functionalities from the original estimate (***) are no longer part of the project
  scope because I supposedly failed to pay on time. This assertion is incorrect, as per
  my bank records and the refunded amount. Furthermore, in an email communication,
  the company indicated that they were moving forward with the additional
  functionalities of the second estimate without requiring me to complete the payment
  of the first estimate.
  
  Attempts to Resolve the Issue: Despite numerous email exchanges to clarify and
  resolve these issues, Plentitud has offered shifting justifications. Initially, they stated
  that several tasks arising from my feedback were new and not included in the scope
  of the project, suggesting they should be moved to a hypothetical 'Phase 2'. This was
  despite my clarification that most of my comments and requests were aligned with
  our previous discussions, designs on Figma, and the two original estimates (*** and
  ***), which had features such as the diner's dashboard, account creation, and blog
  post and review functionality.
  
  Upon further discussion, Plentitud then switched their stance, claiming that I had
  failed to pay the remaining balance for estimate #*** on time, leading to its expiry.
  They argued that this meant they were unable to work on the tasks outlined in that
  estimate. These responses have been inconsistent and contradict our initial
  agreement and understanding. The original estimates were clear that they would
  encompass all initially agreed features, and the second estimate was understood to
  supplement the first one, not to replace it.
  
  Account/Order/Tracking Number: The initial project agreement was made under
  estimate number *** (Invoice **** & ***), and the updated agreement under
  estimate number *** (Invoice ***). (Appendix 2)
  
  In conclusion, as a startup, budgeting and careful planning are critical to our
  operations. The initial and subsequent estimates were made with the clear
  understanding that the second estimate would be a supplement to the original
  agreement, not a replacement. The company's decision to exclude core features
  from the original agreement without my explicit consent, while also demanding
  additional payment, is not only a breach of our understanding but also impacts the
  functionality and overall quality of the final product. This situation leaves me
  questioning the logic behind paying a higher price for a product that lacks core
  functionalities initially agreed upon.