Pro Tile

Write a Review941-923-8453

CLOSED NOW - Opens at 10:00am

We had our pool deck resurface by PROtile 15 years ago which worked out very well. It was easy to clean and was still in pretty good shape when we decided to redo our pool, deck and cage this year. We had no second thoughts about installing PROtile again for the pool deck. Their team from selection of the exact pattern to the installation was truly exceptional. It took 4 days to install and involved removing the old coating and applying multiple layers of the pigmented new surface. It was hard to believe but they did this without making a mess. They covered the pool and utilized a dust collector during the demolition phase and when they finished the area was clean and neat. The job involved vertical surfaces as well as the deck which presented no problem for the installers. I was amazed at their work ethic and professional manner as well as the quality of the finished product.
Jeff & Cathy B.

Excellent experience from start to finish! Professional help with selection, reliable and honest workers, and excellent follow-up. I highly recommend them!!

As the owner of this company, which has been doing business for 30 some years and pride ourselves on being very professional. In response to the very negative review, we were only trying to prevent the client from having problems down the road. If Pro Tile was not an honest company, we would not be turning away business to prevent a customer from having problems.

Based on a referral I visited Pro-Tile in late September & scheduled an appointment for 10/2 to inspect deterioration of the decorative coating on my drive & front walkway. A young field rep/estimator from Pro-Tile (Jared Brantingham) visited my home & prepared a Proposal/Contract for work to repair the overlay. I was told Pro-Tile had installed these coatings in the mid-90’s. A proposal/contract was presented stipulating that I had 90 days to accept it. The scope included power-washing & prepping all surfaces, repair of these delaminating areas, re-coloring of the entire drive & walkway and resealing the entire surface.

During this visit I shared that I would review the Contract & get back to him before I returned to our FL home in December. On 11/10 I called Jared to accept the contract, further discuss color options and firm up a work schedule. In this conversation I was told Pro-Tile would not honor the Contract due to a concern about ‘possible’ future delamination of the overlay. He was unable to offer an explanation as to why this was not mentioned earlier or included in the original contract.

Not being satisfied with this feedback I called the Pro-Tile business office the next day & spoke with Jennifer (identified as Jared’s sister and GM of Pro=Tile). Jennifer indicated that due to the overlay condition that Pro-Tile would not honor the Contract since the driveway had not been resealed when a quote was prepared for maintenance by the previous homeowner in 2013. We concluded our conversation with her commitment to personally inspect the condition of the driveway so we could revisit how we might proceed. She committed to call me back on 11/13.

Having not heard from her I called her 11/17 and was told she was not available & would be out the remainder of the week & that she would call back early the week of 11/16. Again, having not heard back I phoned again on 11/17 & was again told she was not available and my message would be given to her. On 11/18 I received a call from another Pro-Tile employee mentioning that Jennifer referred the matter on to Debbie Brantingham & that Debbie would call on 11/30. After a brief conversation with Debbie on 11/30 it became apparent that she was not willing to honor the Contract due to concerns that they did not know if any work had been done by the previous owners in 2013 at the time a proposal had been submitted for recoating. Her concern being their coatings may not be compatible with those that MAY have been used IF work had been done by others. I suggested that we do a couple test spots to test compatibility which was not viewed as an option that Ms. Brantingham found to be acceptable. This reply did not seem to be rational due to the thought that IF a coating had been applied by others in the 2013 that incompatibilities should have surfaced in this timeframe and that testing was an approach that would show tell-tale signs of incompatibility.

Based on conversations with 3 different Pro-Tile Representatives I received 3 different answers for why they would not honor the Contract they submitted.

These varied responses along with their customer unfriendly business practices are unacceptable and not typical of reputable companies.

Perhaps there could be a compatibility issue (which could be assessed by small scale testing). Perhaps the surfaces were not maintained according to ‘suggested guidelines’ and not re-coated in 2013 when their maintenance proposal was submitted. Perhaps there could be some future degradation issues that could surface – which were not noted in earlier discussions. Perhaps they underbid the job and just wanted to back out of their contractual responsibility.

Whatever the real reason . . . REPUTABLE COMPANIES do not run their businesses in a manner that lacks integrity and takes on these customer unfriendly overtones.