| HOME BUILDING SOLUTIONS |
| HOME BUILDING SOLUTIONS John Halse - Owner Bad Contractor, No skilled labor, Refused to finish the job then threatened lawsuit Milford, Ohio |
| 12th of Apr, 2011 by User945458 |
| John Halse is the owner of Home Bbuilding Solutions and was contraacted to do a major repir to our home after extensive water damage occurred. Halse promised that he could do the job, gained our trust but begged for more and more money ahead of the construction schedule. He bought most of his tools off our money and brought in what appeared to be people he picked up on a street corner to do our work. He hired none skilled workers, failed to supervise them. Hlase lied about work that was done and just about all the work that was completed was done without skill, improperly, not as requested. Halse broke items during the repair and when I had given him just about every dime the contract called for, he quit the job about halfway done then called an attorney who tried to threaten us with a lawsuit if we did not pay. I asked the attorney to come to the house and look at the contract and the repair work and even told her if she truly believed that Halse did a decent job or even completed the work at all, I would pay the $5,000 left of over $100,000 paid to him. The attorney stopped calling and said she was not going to pursue the matter anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Mark Rankin is a SWAT police officer with the Norwood Police Department. Home Building Solutions was contracted to perform an extensive repair job to his home, the job was covered by an insurance claim. Contrary to Mr Rankins statement, Home Building Solutions provided 11 crew to perform the task compiled of qualified builders and labor staff.
The job was performed to the satisfaction of the insurance company concerned, warranty work was carried out as laid out in the signed agreement Mr Rankin had with the company. He did request extra work in the bathroom area and other changes to the schedule as laid out by the insurance company. Our company refused his request because the work entailed exceeded the amount provided by insurance. Mr Rankin was not happy with the refusal and at the end of the job would not pay the remaining $7500 owed the company.
It was later found that Mr Rankin could not afford the payment, he had spent the allotted money on additional items for the house, his major purchase being a new commercial oven for his kitchen valued at approximately $10, 000. This coupled with new cupboards and other additions placed him beyond his capability to pay.
Contrary to Mr Rankins statement, all payments were made based on the required payment schedule laid out in the written agreement and signed by Mr Rankin. This is standard procedure for large jobs. At one stage the job was halted because of Mr Rankins failure to pay a stage payment of $32, 000, it was three weeks before he finally made the payment to allow work to continue.
Our company coupled with associated companies we used for specialist work would not do any further business for this customer based on his actions for the the duration of this project. It should also be noted that the property went into foreclosure on 14/10/2010.
Mr Rankin has not told the truth, our company did not pursue the outstanding amount trough an attorney, it was simply not cost effective to do so with the expense of costs associated with such an exercise. Our decision was also based on the information concerning foreclosure and the amount involved. |
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
