Peter Bourque, a resident of Nauwigewauk, thought he was doing good by hiring Quispamsis’s Valley Roofing to replace his leaked roof after a friend recommended the company.
“I received some quotes and decided to go with him. I’m a young guy starting a new business, so I just want to support the up-and-coming locals,” he said.
But after hiring owner Craig Schultz and sending him a $ 3,000 deposit, Burke said it soon became apparent that the roofing work wasn’t done.
Then there was an endless cycle of Burke calling and talking to Schultz. Schultz explained why he couldn’t work at his house in a rural community about 30 kilometers from St. John.
A frustrated customer was witty on Friday, a few weeks after the alleged roofer started.
Bourque said he sent Schulz an email and text, leaving a voicemail and giving him a Sunday deadline to return the deposit. Otherwise, he went to the police and posted about the company on social media to warn others about Valley Roofing.
He said he hadn’t heard anything, so I posted it on Facebook. After going back and forth several times following the post, Bourque said Schulz would eventually be unable to return the money to him.
Mr. Burke spoke with an officer of the Hampton RCMP’s detachment, stating that the business issue was a civil issue and was advised to file a claim against him in a small court.
In November, he filed a claim against Schultz in St. John’s court and wanted to get his money back.
It turns out that he is not the only one.
A pile of small-amount litigation against contractors
Hillary Steele is also mentioned as a plaintiff in a document filed with the St. John Court. She and her husband claim that they lost $ 4,000 to the contractor. Steele told the newspaper that they hired Shulz after they sold their home. They had to build a roof for the new owner.
“We just paid in advance,” she said. “This summer [the new owners] I really had a hard time getting in touch with him. They called us, [say] He cancels them. In the end, we realized he wasn’t going to appear in the job. ”
Bourque and Steele filed in November, while another plaintiff, Ryan McLean, filed in September. McLean claims to have lost $ 5,675 after prepayment. No work has been done so far, and the owner hasn’t called for two months, according to comments on the Small Court form.
Bourque said he was not yet able to contact the contractor to respond to his claim.
None of these claims have been proved in court. Telegraph-Journal requested Schulz to comment on the number given in the court document, but did not respond. Bourque said he deleted the company’s Facebook page shortly after Schulz posted about his online business experience.
Since his post, Bourque said he heard from about 12 people in the area who had similar experiences to roofers.
Rod Gillis, a civil lawyer at St. John, said it would be difficult for police to prove the intent of the crime in such cases. He said the best approach was to file a civil suit and recommended using both the company name and the owner’s name.
“If it’s a fraud issue, it’s hard to prove, and on the criminal side, unless the claim is being advanced by a bank that says,” We were fraudulent from $ 200,000. ” You’re not going to find many police agencies that not only nod, but also get your name and number, “Gillis said.
Jeremy Piper, who has a detachment of the Hampton RCMP where Constant Burke reported the problem, said the unit was under investigation, but there was only one complaint about the company.
Contractor performance raises questions
This is not the first year a dissatisfied customer tried to bring Schultz to court.
According to an affidavit filed by Luke Mosher and Joshua Innis in 2019, Schulz undertook roofing work for its First City Ventures Ltd. in July 2018. But in August of the same year, they discovered that the roof was leaking in some places.
“The claimant tried to contact Mr. Schultz, but he refused to go back and deal with the problem,” reads the invoice.
That September, Mosher and Innis adopted A Buyer’s Choice Home Inspections to assess the issue. As a result, the company has identified “some areas of poor finish.”
The report contained in the claim includes examples of water and moisture stains on the floor due to water infiltration, stucco ceiling stains, and light visible around plumbing vents.
According to court records, in January 2020, Schultz was ordered by small-value court arbiter Tammy L. Moore to pay Mosher, Innis, and First City Ventures Limited $ 16,816.48.
Ron Hutton, executive director of the New Brunswick Roofing Contractors Association, said the issues surrounding Quispamsis’s Valley Roofing have turned the industry into a negative view. He recommends that consumers seek reference, never provide a deposit, and ensure that the contractor has WorkSafe NB coverage and liability insurance.
“If you’re looking for the cheapest price possible, sometimes you’re in a situation where you don’t want to go in,” Hatton said. “If the contractor quotes you and says you need money to buy the material, it’s usually a red flag. If the contractor can’t raise money for the material (…), you’re it. Should not be done. ”
He also proposed to buy roofing materials and hire a contractor for labor. In the event of a suspicious situation such as a valley roof, you should contact the police.
“When things went south, you still got the material, but you shouldn’t pay as a deposit for a job you’ve never seen – a period,” he said.
“Use your gut sensations. When people arrive to make a quote, how do they get dressed, how do they approach you, what is their attitude? They Are you a professional? “
Quispamsys contractor accused of collecting deposits and quitting his job
Source link Quispamsys contractor accused of collecting deposits and quitting his job