Dan The Paver Inc

Dan called and was at my house well within 10 minutes. He thoroughly explained the work to be done. I was satisfied with the process.

Review: I had a contract with Dan the Paver (D. [redacted]) to apply an asphalt overlay to my existing driveway. The contract included tack coating the driveway and milling of one or more particularly bad areas, neither of which was done. D. [redacted] indicated that the tack coat was in the asphalt mix. I spoke with a supplier and an engineer who works for NJ DOT, and they confirmed that a tack coat is an emulsified liquid that is applied separately and prior to the asphalt overlay to ensure bonding of the mix to the surface. The missing tack coat and skipping the agreed upon milling significantly reduces the life expectancy of the overlay by causing raveling, slippage and separation. D. [redacted] stated to me that he would definitely mill the bad areas because they needed it, but then backed off with an excuse that one of his men indicated it was not needed. He made no effort in notifying me of this during the installation, nor did he volunteer to adjust the contract accordingly. Further, D. [redacted] said it should be and will be milled. This should be enough to override anything his men have to say, considering he is the owner and supposed expert.

In addition, when the job was about 1/4 completed, D. [redacted] demanded final payment. He threatened that if he were not paid right then and there he would take his men and equipment and leave immediately. This was inexcusable behavior and certainly uncalled for. At the time, I felt no other recourse but to pay or have my driveway left in shambles.Desired Settlement: $8,500 refund for the improper job of asphalt overlay that was missing the tack coat and milling as promised in the contract. A proper application would require a complete removal of the overlay and base and therefore needs to be completely redone. This would cost me even more than the careless and substandard overlay D. [redacted] applied. The contract states that the job would be done in a "workmanlike manner according to standard practices," but clearly D. [redacted] failed to follow any standard practices and it certainly was not done in a workmanlike manner. Further, his brash behavior and demand for final payment under a vile threat before the work was completed were unprofessional, unethical and possibly illegal.

Business

Response:

This office has been retained to represent Dan the Paver, Inc., in response to the complaint referenced above. Enclosed below if the response sent to the Department of Consumer Affairs in response to this same incident.