Industrial Solutions Handyman Services - Failure to Satisfy Unpaid Judgments/Shoddy Workmanship
This company is a member of the Better Business Bureau and has an A+ rating. (For more on what that actually means see 20/20 expose on BBB's pay to play system).
Basically, this man and his employees performed the work depicted in the pictures, sued us, and were found to be in breach of contract by the court.
Mr. Quarles also attempted to sue us for injuries, his girlfriend and employee, Veronica Harper, incurred when she carelessly cut herself while working on the premises. That claim was also rejected by the court.
Despite the BBB's claims to report "Finalized government actions against the business that relate to its marketplace activities and, in BBB's opinion, raise questions about the business’s ethics or its reliability in providing products/services." The BBB did not find this information relevant to consumers in "it's opinion."
On February 11th 2015 Lee Anne Lanigan of the BBB attempted to qualify this statement by saying,"For the purposes of BBB, civil actions are not reportable.
BBB only reports on government actions which are legal actions brought by federal, national, state, provincial or local government law enforcement agencies against the business and/or its principals when they are relevant to the business's marketplace dealings with the public."
However, alleged offers supposedly made by an accredited business owner during an informal, confidential mediation proceeding within those same government halls and institutions are considered perfectly fair and valid sources of information to put in BBB reports.
These types of statements, like many BBB responses, are incongruous with other BBB claims when read alongside statements made by the BBB which claims to call for transparency by requiring businesses to:
"Make known all material facts in both written and verbal representations, remembering that misrepresentation may result not only from direct statements but by omitting or obscuring relevant facts."
Ms. Lanigan was given ten business days to correct any possible errors in my understanding and assessments or request more time to answer and she declined. She also refused to support the findings of the BBB committee (which naturally favored the accredited business, despite a total lack of evidence, Mr. Quarle's repeated refusals to abide by the terms of the BBB or it's advertised ethics and a court judgment instigated by and against the business which Mr. Quarles continues to resist).U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977)Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.
Failure to Satisfy Unpaid Judgments: Under Ohio law, it is an unfair and deceptive practice, in violation of the CSPA, to conduct business in the State of Ohio without first fully satisfying all judgments against the supplier granted by any jurisdiction based on violation(s) of consumer protection laws.
Letter to Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine regarding business:
Company was hired to install flooring but payment was withheld due to shoddy workmanship and other expenses. Owner became threatening and verbally abusive and had to be removed from the property. Company then sued me for labor and injuries incurred by owner's girlfriend while working on the premises. Franklin County Municipal Small Claims magistrate Danielle Sparks found the company to be in breach of contract for shoddy workmanship and rejected the company's/girlfriend's injury claim.
An employee of Mr. Quarles, a man by the name of Jason Huston, followed me out of the courtroom on one occasion and began threatening me. Court awarded me (the defendant) $64.81 plus costs and interest at 3% per annum. Judgement was issued December 30, 2014 and plaintiff refuses to pay. Company is accredited through the BBB and attempts have been made to collect through their organization. Company offered $75.00 as full and final payment. Have tried to inform the BBB several times now as to the mistake and the BBB maintains there is nothing left to discuss.
$64.81 plus costs and interest at 3% per annum comes to approximately $91.00. Both the BBB and business have been informed of the mistake but refuse to put a stop payment on the check and reissue in the correct amount. Business is attempting to make a new offer for less than the court award. The $75.00 offer has been rejected and now the company is refusing to pay, placing them in contempt of court.
*** END ***
It would also appear that the company is operating under several ficticious, unregistered business names.
Failure to Register Trade or Fictitious Name: Under Ohio law, it is an unfair and deceptive practice, in violation of the CSPA, to conduct business in the State of Ohio without first registering the supplier’s trade name or fictitious name with the Ohio Secretary of State, as required under O.R.C. 1329.01.
Letter to Attorney General Mike Dewine regarding BBB:
The BBB claims "marketplace neutrality," that "[Their] purpose is not to act as an advocate for businesses or consumers but to act as a mutually trusted intermediary to resolve disputes and provide information to assist consumers in making wise buying decisions..." BBB also claims to report on "known significant government actions involving business' marketplace conduct" but refuses to report on known government actions against paying, accredited businesses.
The BBB deliberately and routinely lies in order to deceive consumers searching for relevant information about (accredited) companies by creating and promoting a presence, based on a false sense of trust, and attempting to lure consumers into unwittingly giving up their rights by luring them into legally binding arbitration which naturally favors the accredited businesses based on the faulty information they provide in their reports.
This image projected by the BBB is not only based on false information but includes withholding pertinent information which the BBB knows to be true about companies accredited through their organization. BBB claims that businesses are required to "Make known all material facts in both written and verbal representations, remembering that misrepresentation may result not only from direct statements but by omitting or obscuring relevant facts" Yet the BBB routinely chooses to omit relevant facts and information arbitrarily when it favors accredited businesses, endangering and preying on the rights of consumers who rely on the deceptive image put forth by BBB.
The BBB not only omits facts, they invent facts that cannot be confirmed, relying on hearsay, rumor and conjecture as suitable reporting methods for consumers to base informed opinions about companies accredited through their offices.
BBB claims to be not for profit but many of their top paid executives make six figure salaries. This is not the first time that the BBB has come under this kind of scrutiny. However, since accredited businesses are contractually bound not to speak out against the BBB and non-accredited businesses risk marketplace annihilation based on faulty reporting and completely arbitrary letter grades given out by the BBB, consumers are left with little to no recourse since the BBB only requires money from the consumer once they have been duped them into surrendering their rights in exchange for fixed arbitration.
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748
"Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness."
Reason of review: Bad Quality, Poor Customer Service.
Monetary Loss: $600.
Preferred solution: Full refund.
I didn't like: Litigious, Hotheaded, Stubborn, Threatening, Verbally abusive, Menacing.