Innovation Construction Co, Inc.

Thank you for those kind words, I make every effort to do the best job possible within the constraints of the economic climate we are in, as I enter my 4th decade of building and remodeling I have a fresh sense of where we are in the cycle and what needs to be watched carefully to be "in business" post the next economic re-alignment. Again thank you. Keith

In early November of 2015, I provided a job estimate to Linda Hannon and her husband Tom. I was called by them as a result of a referral from happy clients. I began our interaction, ironically, with especially high hopes for a positive experience, as the Hannons presented themselves as colleagues in the remodeling business. At our initial meeting, I was informed that the two of them had an extensive background in “the home improvement business.” They were very proud to tell me that the two of them had just completed a top to bottom renovation of their primary residence, that Tom had a prior career as a kitchen contractor, and Linda had participated in extensive renovations with her family over the years. I was confident this project would go smoothly, since I believed they had professional background and inside knowledge within the building industry.
I could not have been more wrong. What follows is my response to their tangled and contentious complaint.

SHINGLE COLOR MATCH & ROOF LEAK
The Hannon complaint regarding this part of the project -- The roof tiles [sic: she did not know they were called shingles] he replaced were a different color and the roof leaked like a sieve -- fails to mention that
1.In signing off on the proposal in which my company promised replacement of asphalt shingles of a “color to be as close as possible to match,” the Hannons acknowledged that no current shingles would perfectly match their weathered shingles from discontinued color batches.
2.Not only did they depart from this reasonable agreement by screaming insults rather than initiating discussion, Mrs. Hannon expressed her dissatisfaction with the color match with a preemptive verbal assault on my roofer so vicious and relentless that he felt compelled to call me about a hostile work environment. The confrontation may be confirmed with a concrete contractor and an overhead door installation contractor, each of whom want nothing to do with her.
3.When the shingle color did not match, the Hannons blamed me. But missing from the Hannon complaint is my offer for Mrs. Hannon to personally shop for one bundle of shingles to her liking, with a credit off her bill for that amount – with the result that, after a weekend of searching, the Hannons sheepishly agreed my shingles were the closest match available.
4.In contracting for replacement of missing shingles and rotted wood trim only, the Hannons acknowledged there was no expectation of additional roof repair or remediation of structural conditions that had led to ongoing leaking.
5.I had immediately recognized the compromised condition of the roof and had counseled complete roof replacement.
6.When the Hannons protested that roof replacement was too costly, I then counseled that they needed all 50 years’ worth of incorrect roofing materials removed and a one-piece seamless rubber membrane roof installed. They rejected this advice.
7.When the roof continued leaking, the Hannons blamed me. But missing from the Hannon complaint is acknowledgment that, sometime the following year, they had a one-piece rubber membrane installed by a local roofing company, exactly as I had recommended. With no additional shingle work beyond what I had done for them, the Hannon’s roof then stopped leaking.

PERMITS & CODES
The Hannon complaint -- He didn’t pull any permits until we forced him to pull one for the garage – is beyond disingenuous, since their entire project outside the scope of my portion was a beehive of non permitted activity. It was, in fact, the Hannons who pulled no permits until my extra diligence forced their hand.
The Hannon complaint -- the header was not to code – fails to mention that they directed me to install the header in an interior of finished plaster walls which concealed a balloon style framework that I would have recognized as requiring different specifications had it been revealed at the time. When their subsequent demolition revealed the conditions, I did apply for a permit, resulting in a stop-work order which enraged them (although not enough to actually stop work). Their anger was not at themselves for their own incompetence but at me for following proper procedure which exposed both their incompetent techniques and unscrupulous tactics.
The Hannon permit complaint is false, misleading, and unsupported by municipal documents.
1. I had already been working for about three weeks on the contracted detached garage maintenance when the Hannons requested a bonus job outside the contract -- that I help them with a header (loadbearing beam) they needed to open up two rooms in their house on the same property. They asked if I could do this without a building permit, since they had no building permits to do the complete renovation and new apartment creation for that residence. As I was the contractor for the garage maintenance job only, and permits for the house would be their responsibility to follow through on, I assisted with the header.
2.As a residential contractor, I knew that maintenance work on a non-habitable building such as the garage did not require a permit in the residentially zoned properties with which I was familiar. The Hannons, who presented themselves to me as co-professionals in the remodeling business, had hired me for the garage project knowing I was a licensed residential contractor. My initial confidence that co-professionals would understand best practices had waned somewhat after seeing that the Hannons were pursuing an extensive, piecemeal gutting of their commercially zoned residence without benefit of any building permits. They were hiring numerous subcontractors (electricians, plumbers) to work without municipal permits, and their goal was to knowingly carve an illegal apartment from a commercially zoned residence. I decided to double check the permitting process for the garage.
3.When I researched the permitting requirements for the garage, they discouraged me from pursuing it -- admitting that their activities would then be exposed by inspectors.
4.I stopped into the building inspector and asked him if the garage work I was contracted to do required a building permit as it was maintenance in nature nothing new constructed. The building inspector stated to me that if it were residential I would be correct, but as it is commercial I must have a building permit. It was at that meeting that I picked up the necessary paperwork and filed my building permit for the maintenance work I was contracted to do to on the freestanding garage.
5.The permit for work on the header – in the residence, not the garage for which I had contracted -- was the Hannon’s responsibility and when they asked that I not seek a job-specific permit, I obliged. I spent 6 hours with two workers until the header work had been completed, and during that time all interior walls were up and plastered. There were finished plaster walls to the left and right of where I did the work. I have pictures to prove that these finished walls precluded observation of the structure of the house. However, after my portion of the job was complete, the Hannons went into demolition mode and kept on removing plaster walls, ultimately uncovering the true extent of their problems: the construction of the entire house was balloon frame, no code compliant bearing walls anywhere.
6.I made the decision to pull a permit to the header post completion. I had acquiesced to the non permitted spot project initially, but after the Hannons’ demolition revealed the structural irregularities, they challenged me that it was not to code, to which I said, "by what authority are you stating that?” My work had been compliant within my knowledge of the structure before concealed conditions were revealed. It was to code as per the apparent existing conditions. In demanding that I redo the header project to comply with previously concealed conditions, the Hannons were essentially demanding that I pay for their error (failure to determine the structure of their residence before beginning self-directed remodeling) by redoing the project to comply with previously concealed conditions. I pulled the beam permit to ensure structural integrity would win out. The ensuing inspection exposed their illegal construction and the building inspector presented them with a stop-work order.
7.I made an appointment with the building inspector during the last week of December 2015 to come out and review the permitted loadbearing beam I had installed in their now “cease and desist” project. It was then that I received a threatening email (one of many hostile emails from both Hannons during our association) and was fired by Tom and banished from the property. Tom made it clear neither I nor any of my employees were to set foot on the property. That they included the building inspector in their list of persons banned from their property is an indication of the entitled rage which informed their actions when all did not go their way.
8.Typical of somebody who’s been caught in a misdeed the Hannons would like it to be somebody else’s fault, going so far as to attempt to bring a small claims suit against me for $7000 for the $740 beam which they had replaced with a ten-foot beam to suit the previously concealed conditions. I am in possession of the substantiating records.
9.In their eagerness to demonize me and feel vindicated in their attacks, the Hannons have neglected to mention that, in the spirit of conciliation and to defend my reputation, I offered, through an attorney, half of their $740 back, despite firmly believing their claim was unfounded. That was unacceptable to Linda, who prefers to pursue the small claims court action in hopes of getting others to pay for her mistakes.
CONFRONTATION, WOMEN & VOLATILITY
The (Linda) Hannon complaint --He has a serious problem with confrontation and women. . .By the time we fired him, I could not be on our property when he was there because of his volatility – fails to provide context, which would show that volatility and confrontation issues begin at home.
1.As past client testimonials will show, I have a reputation for responsiveness and communication. And I do not have a problem with women. I have a problem with abusive, belligerent bullies of any and all genders.
2.There was one overriding reason Linda Hannon was eventually banished from the property when I was there: she is not a communicator, she is an attack dog who lunges without provocation, hurling insults and false accusations. Her disruptive, uninformed verbal assaults on not just me but my employees and other subcontractors create a hostile environment in which it is nearly impossible to think let alone work. Volatility would be one of her gentler qualities, yet she implies that she decided to stay away because I have the volatility problem. I will offer that I do not stand meekly while under attack, but anger on my part is a temporary reaction to her rage – which appears integral to her nature.
3.The fact that this is the second internet attack for which I have had to defend myself, the attacks being approximately one year apart, combined with the relentlessness of their approach is indicative of flawed characters. Bullies come in all shapes, sizes and genders. Both Tom and Linda are badly flawed characters. Linda is a bully.
INSURANCE
In the Hannon complaint, the remark -- If you do decide to use him, make sure you see his liability insurance binder. I have yet to see one -- does not expose my lack of insurance (I am fully covered) but it does expose the Hannons as having misrepresented themselves as co-professionals in the building industry. As a Massachusetts corporation, I’m required to carry insurance. This complaint reveals only that the Hannons are ignorant of the transparent process for accessing a contractor’s insurance information. This is yet another area where I made the mistake of being lulled into a false sense of security that I was dealing with colleagues who did not require spoon feeding of common building practices. Their bragging of their extensive backgrounds in this industry was a clear signal to me that they were in the know about building codes, best practices, and – of course – insurance. A favorite expression of the both of them was, "we get it.” Until they didn't.
1.When they were seeking my insurance information (mid Spring 1016), they stated they had a $10K claim – their attempt to have me pay for their mistakes on the header, and perhaps make some money on the deal to boot. When they sued in small claims (May through July 2016), they could only represent themselves to $7k, so their profit scam was foiled, but they chose to continue seeking money they were not owed. The Hannons have left a trail of similar lawsuits with other contractors – a red flag as to their method of operation.
2.My insurance information is always presented to clients who do not represent themselves as “in the know” building professionals. Regarding the Hannons’ claims, my insurance binder remains as complete and healthy as it was before, during, and after my ill-advised contract with them. My carriers have been put on alert and have been given a full recollection of these events to defend vigorously any false claims the Hannon’s may wish to pursue.
I will continue to approach all my clients with respect and responsiveness, still believing the best of people until they prove otherwise. The disheartening experience with the Hannons will certainly put me on guard, though. And I hope I have sounded a warning to other contractors whom they might contact after the toxic dust of their most recent lawsuits has settled.

After decades maintaining a first-rate reputation as a trusted local builder– validated by testimonials and a list of long-term clients – I have found no need to be defensive about the few situations that weren't a good fit. It is also not my nature or practice to engage in arguments over minutiae or misinterpretations.

But fabrication is not interpretation.

When Laura Marie of Westport (sometimes posting as shipbuilders33) continues to present my business practices in an alternate reality, and does so repeatedly in the public forum, she places me in the position of having to correct the narrative.

In a nutshell:
I spent over 40 hours patiently revising bids to a non disclosed budget and shifting design concept.
I always laid bid details out clearly in the design plans submitted with each estimate.
My only expressed irritation was when, between the fourth and fifth estimate, she still would not reveal a specific budget number (a request I had made from the start).
When I did finally indicate it might be best for her to go with another company, I did so in a cordial email, not at all close to the "nasty email" as she describes it. An excerpt of that email:
"I would not be offended if you went shopping for another contractor. . . I have asked you to tell me where you want this project to fall and you refuse, a level of trust I am uncomfortable with . . .whatever I am doing for you is not working and it’s time to stop. I apologize for that."
I have, indeed, offered to refund $500 of the $1,000 retainer (in a response to one of her initial complaints), despite her having signed off on its being nonrefundable.

A couple of very telling footnotes to her latest complaint, in which she again paints herself as continually frustrated by my unresponsiveness to her key questions (when the opposite was true) and then asserts her claim to a refund of the entire $1,000:
1) In an email to me dated September 20, 2013 (after our parting of the ways), Laura Marie of Westport writes, " I don't understand why it is so hard to understand the need for clarity on what is included in the estimate especially when one is about to spend $196K." If she knew all along that $196,000 was within her budget, why did she wait to reveal this information until after she had rejected my final bid of $186,000 as too expensive?
2) In this same email, she also writes, in regard to the retainer fee, "Out of respect for you and your time, I would be willing to accept half of it only ($500) and then consider us both free to go our own ways with no further remedy, expectation or hard feelings." This statement in a September 2013 email, and her awareness of my agreeable response, calls into even greater question Laura Marie of Westport's motivation for continuing on a path of vitriolic reviews about situations that are not true and assertions of injustices that have not occurred.

This was more than merely one very rare instance of an unsatisfactory client relationship. It was a learning experience for me. Customer satisfaction will always remain top of the list for me, along with professional behavior and craftsmanship. But if a customer will not reveal the criteria for a satisfying home improvement partnership, the mutually beneficial result is a quick and hopefully cordial parting. Perhaps if I had acted upon the warning signs earlier, this could have been the case with Laura Marie and her project. And, unless it is her tendency to escalate misunderstandings into feuds, I sincerely hope she will act on her previously stated decision to accept a compromise refund of $500 and, once and for all, leave us free to go our own ways with no further remedy, expectation or hard feelings.