Reviews

Review Details

• Review fromDaniel R

  Date: 07/08/2025

  1 star

  Daniel R

  Date: 07/08/2025

  I spent over $5,400 with this company, and not only did they ghost me before completing the project, but the boundary survey they provided was illegitimate and couldn’t even be used. I had to hire another surveying firm and spend an additional $3,000 to get the job redone properly.
  ***** was easy to work with at first, but as soon as I paid, communication dropped off dramatically. We had a detailed, hour-long meeting about the next steps to move my subdivision project forward based on the work they had done — and then I never heard from them again. Despite multiple attempts to follow up, they completely stopped responding.
  To make matters worse, the “site survey” they provided didn’t even have all the property corners properly marked, and the map they gave me literally stated that it wasn’t a site survey — despite them charging me for one. Their failure to deliver delayed my subdivision project by over 4 months, causing major financial and timeline setbacks.
  This entire experience was incredibly frustrating and costly. I would strongly advise others to avoid this compa

  Brotherton Land Surveying

  Date: 07/09/2025

  We, Brotherton Land Surveying, were engaged by *** ****** ***** around July 31, 2024, to perform professional land surveying services at his personal property located at **** ******* ****, Whites Creek, TN 37189.
  Per the agreed scope of work outlined in the contract (referenced in the complaint attachment), the requested services included a boundary survey, soil grid staking, and soil map. These services, along with a topographic survey (soil map slopes drawing), were completed over the course of December 9, 2024, through January 16, 2025. Deliverables, including the signed and sealed PDF copies of the Soil Map and Soil Map Slopes. were delivered to *** ***** on January 17, 2025. These documents were subsequently approved by the State. An invoice was sent the same day, and payment was received shortly thereafter.
  Following the delivery, around early February 2025, *** ***** reached out to discuss a potential second phase, specifically the possibility of subdividing his property into three lots. In response, my team processed the inquiry by submitting pre-application requests with Metro Nashville, collecting relevant documents from *** *****, and scheduling a Zoom meeting held on February 21, 2025, to review the project details.
  During that meeting, we identified several critical constraints impacting the feasibility of the subdivision:
  • Square footage limitations of proposed lots
  • Septic system sizing and placement issues
  • Additional soil testing requirements
  • Potential septic areas located outside proposed lot boundaries
  • Easement understanding and requirements
  • Possible stream crossing issues
  I advised *** ***** to follow up directly with his soil scientist for additional testing, and to consult Metro Nashville for clarification on these planning concerns. I made it clear that once he had gathered this information, we could provide an accurate estimate and scope of work for the subdivision.
  After our meeting, I updated my staff that *** ***** would be contacting Metro Nashville and that we were to await further information before proceeding. I later became aware that *** ***** had reached out several times, confused about his responsibility to contact Metro. It was my understanding that my team had followed up with him to clarify this matter.
  To date, we have not received confirmation or documentation that *** ***** has completed the necessary consultation with Metro Nashville to move forward with the project.
  I acknowledge that communication between *** ***** and our office became inconsistent during this time, and I take full responsibility for any missed inquiries. I have since offered my sincerest apologies to *** ***** and extended an offer to find a fair and constructive resolution to the situation.
  As of July 9, 2025, *** ***** and I (***** **********, Brotherton Land Surveying) spoke directly by phone and have come to a mutual resolution regarding his concerns. *** ***** explained that, due to what he felt was a lack of communication, he engaged a second surveying firm to complete the subdivision phase of his project. The second surveying company stated they would need to re-do some boundary work we had previously performed, for their own verification.
  To resolve this matter, we mutually agreed that Brotherton Land Surveying would issue *** ***** a refund of $2,500. This refund covers the original $2,475 quoted fee for the boundary survey plus associated credit card fees. This refund is not an admission of guilt or a concession that the boundary survey was incomplete or performed below the Tennessee State Board Minimum Standards of Practice. I fully stand behind the quality and accuracy of the work performed and can provide all supporting field data and documentation to verify the findings. During our conversation, *** ***** indicated that this was a misunderstanding and retract his complaint.
  Response to *** ***** Complaint, *** ******* statement that he "paid $5,400 and was ghosted without the project being completed" is not accurate. Brotherton Land Surveying fulfilled all services that were contracted and agreed upon in the original scope of work. These included:
  • Boundary Survey
  • Soil Grid Staking
  • Topographic Survey
  • Soil Map
  All deliverables were completed and provided to *** ***** on January 17, 2025, via signed and sealed PDF documents. These were subsequently approved by the State.
  Clarification on Boundary Survey Work
  The boundary survey was completed in accordance with professional standards. Property lines were established using found monuments and reestablished based on deed calls and physical site evidence. The only item not completed was the setting of new ½-inch iron pins at corners where no monumentation was found. This was intentional, as we were in discussions about a future subdivision, at which point all new corners would have been set at once during platting.
  Legitimacy of the Survey
  *** ******* comment that our survey was "illegitimate" appears to have originated from the third-party surveying firm, who claimed the Soil Map could not be used as a boundary survey. This is a misinterpretation, as the Soil Map clearly contains a general note specifying that it is not intended to serve as a boundary survey. The Soil Map was never represented as a boundary survey, those are two distinct deliverables, and *** ***** was provided both appropriately.
  During our phone call on July 9, 2025, *** ***** acknowledged that his misunderstanding stemmed from the third-party firm's comments and that he now understands our survey work was properly completed under the terms of our agreement. I offered to come back to the property and have the new iron rods set immediately to fully fulfill our contract. He said he did not want that as the other surveying firm had already started.
  Brotherton Land Surveying remains committed to providing high-quality professional services and clear communication. While some communication lapses occurred, we took responsibility, offered sincere apologies, and acted in good faith to resolve the matter. We appreciate *** ******* willingness to speak directly and come to an amicable resolution.
  Thank you,