John Hancock Contracting Inc

Review: This company performed work at my mother's home as part of a URA loan. The work was not done correctly or according to the contract. The work was not completed to code. In order to fix the issue I will need to have another contractor fix what his company did. He walked off the job. He hired subcontractors that were frankly no up to par for masonry work. The mason told my mother, " I have never done concrete work before, I just really needed some money." I have a feeling that Hancock pays these general laborers (not contractors) to perform the work for a low wage and pockets the rest of the money for himself. He has been sued by other customers. We will be pursuing legal action as well. I suggest that the URA not recommend this contractor to residents obtaining URA loans. The URA will not assist her with her issues. I cannot understand why the URA would have inspected the work (which was not up to code) and still paid him. The concrete is cracking already and she is having draining issues.Desired Settlement: My mother has already asked for the work to be corrected but he walked the job. He has not offered to refund the money either. We are going to take legal action. We wanted to make other customers aware of his practices as from research I can see that he is still doing work as a contractor. I would not recommend him to anyone. My mother is a hard worker and was ripped off by this conttractor.

Business

Response:

April 16, 2014

The difficulties with the complainant's mother were myriad.

The one salient point in all of this is: John Hancock Contracting was NOT paid for

the work in question. This can be verified by the URA. The URA not 'assisting' with her mother's

issues is because there aren't any. The customer was impossible to talk to; lacks rational thought and wants things for

free. The situation was so impossible, John Hancock Contracting terminated their relationship with this

customer, knowing that we would not be getting paid for the work that had been completed and inspected.

She has ALL the money that would have been paid to Hancock Contracting for the work in question

(approximately $8200.00) PLUS additional money that was held back on a retainage.

She is free to hire anyone else she pleases to have the work

re-done. She is 'out' no money at all. If the staff of Revdex.com wishes to get some sense of the difficulties with this person, they should

have a conversation with her, rather than the daughter. The issues would become immediately apparent.

Sincerely,

John Hancock Contracting