YOUNG MAN'S VIEW: The problem with contractors

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

THERE appears to be a proliferation of Bahamian contractors who are downright shysters, daily engaging in deceptive business practices. It is high-time that the government drafts and passes a Home Construction/Improvement Consumer Protection Act, that includes penal sanctions and seeks to prosecute dodgy contractors to the fullest extent of the law whilst protecting consumers against scam artists who are masquerading as so-called building contractors but whose true intent is to clean people out. We are behind the eight-ball as such legislation already exists in many other jurisdictions.

Over the years—with the exception of a few contractors/construction companies—local contractors have gained a notorious reputation, perhaps having more complaints and negative statements made against them than many other service providers/business places. I’ve heard complaints ranging from deposit disputes to general home improvement fraud to stealing materials from work sites to project abandonment to using inferior materials, but citing them as being of a higher quality to constantly failing to stick to both a building and pay-out schedule to people being grossly overcharged to unscrupulous contractors preying on senior citizens, women and anyone they determine to be vulnerable and unaware of the construction industry and therefore could be taken advantage of. Whilst quite a number of local contractors aren’t crooks, there seem to be many more that are simply crooked!

The number of dishonest, incompetent so-called contractors fleecing Bahamians—many of whom couldn’t build a bird or dog house—have rightly made scores of Bahamians petrified when it comes to home construction and, what’s more, have left a plethora of displeased victims with only the most savvy, persistent and/or financially-sound pursuing civil litigation for damages (and, in some instances, specific performance) in the Supreme Court. The average citizen either doesn’t have the funds to pursue litigation or is simply disinterested in the sluggish justice system, choosing instead to bite the bullet and either hire another contractor, accede to the crooked contractor’s request, be held hostage and “run behind” the unethical contractor with a series of phone calls, emails and face-to-face conversations pleading with them to carry-out work for which they have already been paid, and/or, upon running out of monies, leaving their incomplete structures until either they could complete it out of pocket or sell it (in some instances, these structures are vandalized and become homes to vagrants). Notably, this is all while having to pay mortgages to banks for homes that they don’t live in!

I personally know of at least one person who was a victim of a conniving bank inspector who was working in cahoots with a crooked contractor. In this case, the inspector would tell the bank that the stages were complete, thereby causing the release of funds to the unprincipled contractor and receiving a share of the proceeds. In this case, much of the work was partially completed or not started at all. Most victims of this “cooperative fraud” between the bank’s inspector and a contractor—especially in a small society as ours—end up with a shoddily constructed, poor quality home or the shell of what should’ve been their dream house.

Generally, unscrupulous contractors have severe character flaws, reflecting the most unpleasant aspects of humanity with their deceitfulness, negligence and absolutely apathetic approach to their work/clients. Locally, dishonest contractors are keenly aware that there is no serious regulatory body that could impose sanctions or commence stern disciplinary action so much so that they would be deterred, perhaps publicly embarrassed and most certainly hurt where it counts—that is, in their pocket books. There is a need to expose these clowns!

Given my recent experience with the construction of a commercial building on a Family Island, if I had conducted a proper background check of the so-called contractor, rather than trusting that I could get a fair shake—as the head of the so-called construction company was trusted and was an authority figure for me in my formative years—I would have never hired them.

My journey began with an initial undertaking between myself and another contractor. However, before he could start the work, he sent me a payment schedule that was more than we agreed. I dismissed him on principle, knowing that if I allowed him to get away with adjusting the cost of the contract—even in that one stage—it would recur, particularly as I wouldn’t have nipped that first instance in the bud. That led to contractor number two, who were slick talkers and, as I said earlier, had developed a rapport with me over the years. Here, I was persistently bombarded with demands for monies prior to stages of work actually being initiated and, in a few instances, had demands placed on me for the entirety of funds for stages that hadn’t been completed or started. I came to discover short cuts were also being taken, for example—after having been paid 70 per cent of the monies allocated for the roof and ceiling, a very basic but vitally important facet—that is, the hurricane straps—hadn’t been added and seemingly wouldn’t have been added until the building inspector stopped by—unannounced— and panned the roof, which was later brought to my attention. Moreover, there seemed to have been a hastening and collapsing of incomplete stages, among other things. At one point, I was even told that if I didn’t make full payments for two stages—at that time uninitiated—that the labour would be withdrawn (this is even though I consistently paid in accordance with the payment schedule). How could they demand money for nothing? I cautioned them and urged them to be mindful that withdrawal of labour without cause would amount to a terminable breach. The lady in charge insisted that rather than having the workers return to the job that Friday and Saturday, they would send them that Monday—that is, when I would’ve likely decided to acquiesce to her demands. Later that same day, the island’s building inspector apparently stopped by and I was then informed of what, for me, were his horrific findings. I was appalled and angry. The next day, the head of the company followed through with her threat to withdraw the labour. Once that was brought to my attention, I terminated their contract with immediate effect and retained the key builder that they had hired, who had agreed to accept the remainder of the contract—with some additional monies—to complete work that either they should’ve done or hadn’t done. Yes, I may have lost financially, but I gained in experience and knowledge. Fortunately for me, my building is now finished and I’ve found perhaps one of the few honest contractors in the Bahamas.


And so, what have I learnt?

I would advise anyone engaging in home repairs and/or general construction to be alert, to be circumspect of almost everyone offering their services and to look for any cautionary red flags that would be indicative of a contractor who is more concerned with being a money grubber than with rendering first-class work. Generally speaking, I would recommend the hiring of a quantity surveyor to quantify the materials needed and estimate associated material costs and also to project labour costs—from lowest to highest possible rate. With a quantity surveyor’s report, one could easily eliminate certain contractors just by looking at their quotes, before even interviewing them. Moreover, one should be cautious of bids that are either significantly lower or higher than others; get at least three estimates; request that a contractor refers you to a satisfied homeowner who they may have done work for and seek to conduct on-site inspections of their past work (most people are kind enough to allow one to view the work they had done); beware of slick talkers who are either pressuring you for full payments or exorbitant deposits or to immediately make certain decisions that require thought or who seeks to begin working without any firm agreement relative to labour costs and a payment schedule; and/or any contractor who anxiously requests to fulfil an entire contract but is unwilling to propose stage costs, instead opting to work day-to-day. Even more, ask to see a valid business license, to view their portfolio of work, do not feel pressured to hire anyone if irresolute and, as my grandma says, “for Heaven’s sake” trust your instincts, take your time and do due diligence. One should also document when a contractor doesn’t adhere to specifics of a contract (e.g. stage completion times, sticking with the agreed cost for a job, etc) and, if at all possible, buy as much of your own materials as possible.

The search to find a reputable contractor today—for large and small jobs—is comparable to finding a needle in a haystack.

Indeed, the government should get on with implementing laws to protect against home improvement fraud, thereby vetting and monitoring contractors and providing for the registration of contractors and for any contractor convicted of crimes, in their capacity as contractors, to be forced to terminate their operations. Frankly, all contractors should be properly licensed—not merely have a business license—and there should be a regulatory body that would blacklist them for any nefarious act. What’s more, an online database of contractors should be compiled and launched, so that consumers could better weigh their options and/or critically appraise a contractor or construction company. Any legislation must require contractors to provide any and all background information of their company, any civil or criminal judgments or proceedings filed against them, allow for verification and up-to-date registration and impose strict penalties, even jail time. Indeed, the Ministry of Works or Housing, in conjunction with the Attorney General’s office, should also assist Bahamians by providing a fair, generic contract—on a printed form—for ease of reference and for use by persons who may not be competent at drawing-up a contract, particularly one that could withstand any legal test.

I feel for anyone who has to spend thousands or hundreds of thousands and has been walked out on by a rogue, unethical contractor and who must now endure the misery of having the construction of their dream home/building become a nightmarish, shambolic experience. The government must get on with protecting the average citizen from these avaricious, ungodly vultures!


Comments

B_I_D___ says...

Not to mention that it is a proven fact that when construction starts up in an area...the crime rate in that neighbourhood goes up.

Posted 6 November 2013, 9:04 a.m. Suggest removal

countryfirst says...

The government is the main reason for these sleazy contractors just check out most government projects you will always find shoddy work,backlogs and cost overruns and not to mention KICKBACKS.

Posted 6 November 2013, 7:19 p.m. Suggest removal

Hobo says...

Where were your professionals (architect/engineer), by law all commercial buildings are supposed to be designed by licensed architects who as a part of their service supervise the construction process for the building including helping with the selection of the contractors as well as determining materials need/used and quantifying of stage payments.
As an architect, I have frequently been called in to situations by people who like you tried to manage a construction project themselves, usually there is the cry that the contractor is at fault but many times it is simply a lack of understanding about the process.
You mention the various faults with the contractor, I wonder if you made any demands on the contractor that perhaps he felt necessitated the changing of the contracted amounts, something I see a lot of in my dealings with these matters.
That said I agree that something needs to be done from the governments' part to protect the consumer who despite the large investment most buildings require seem reluctant to protect themselves by hiring professionals conversant with construction practices.

Posted 9 November 2013, 10:16 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment