UPDATE! Gorman now has SIX COMPLAINTS against him with the BBB, including ours. So, while our complaint has been on-going, yet another dissatisfied home owner has taken action against him. Doesn't that sound like someone who stands behind his work and ensures that his customers are satisfied? During our initial meeting with Mr. Gorman on August 29, we walked the site with him and explained the details of the work, including the necessity of controlling the flow of water between our house and detached garage and the driveway and detached garage. We explained that it was crucial that water not settle against, or enter the garage or house. Mr. Gorman represented himself and his company as expert in asphalt paving and laying patio stones in such a way that the flow of water would be properly controlled. Specifically, he assured us that the work would be done in such a way that water did not drain against, or enter, either the house or detached garage from either the driveway or the area between the house and garage. He further assured us that he would do whatever it takes to satisfy us and would stand behind his work. Based on all those assurances, we hired him to do the job. Work commenced on Friday, September 4, 2009. After Mr. Gorman’s crew finished laying the patio stones in the area between the house and garage, it was evident that the stones had been placed in such a way that water would flow directly against the detached garage. We addressed the problem with Mr. Gorman immediately, while the work was still on-going. Mr. Gorman assured us that the patio stones had been laid in such a manner as to direct the water away from either the house or garage. To prove this, Mr. Gorman used a garden hose to direct water onto the area between the house and garage. The water immediately formed into a large pool against the garage and stayed there for approximately 20 minutes. The area was still quite wet over an hour later, despite the fact that it was a hot, sunny, dry summer day. Upon seeing for himself that he had in fact created a drainage problem rather than correctly controlling the flow of water as promised when we hired him, Mr. Gorman became irate and refused to take up the stones and re-grade the area. At that time, he stated that he is not concerned with drainage, thus directly contradicting the assurances he had given us in order to induce us to hire him. At that time, Mr. Gorman threatened to put a lien against our property if we did not accept the work “as is.” He also threatened to put a lien against our neighbor’s house, should they attempt to cancel their contract with him. He then proceeded to become extremely insulting to us at our home and in front of his entire crew, and later became so angry that his own crew had to forcibly remove him from the premises. Despite the fact that work continued for several more days, Mr. Gorman never returned to the worksite, nor did he ever again review or supervise the continuation of the work by his crew, thus leaving unqualified and unlicensed workers to make decisions about, and perform, work on our home without qualified direction, advice, or guidance. On Monday, September 7--two days after pointing out the drainage problem to Mr. Gorman--water did in fact enter our garage from the area where Mr. Gorman himself had observed the water pool. The water came in at the base of the garage wall, where it was directed to travel by the angle and height of the patio stones that Mr. Gorman’s crew had installed. We took a photograph of the water coming into the garage and e-mailed it to Mr. Gorman with a request that he remedy the situation. Our e-mail exchange with Mr. Gorman, including his reply to us and the photograph of the water in the garage are attached for your review. In his e-mailed reply, Mr. Gorman agreed to send one person to look at the area the following day, with no guarantee that he could or would fix the problem. Because Mr. Gorman expressed uncertainty regarding how to grade the area to allow for proper drainage, we offered to hire—at our own expense—a drainage expert to consult with him on the matter. We offered Mr. Gorman the opportunity to review and approve the credentials of said expert before agreeing to implement the expert’s solution. Mr. Gorman would not agree to that arrangement. The next day, Tuesday, September 8, Mr. Gorman sent an employee who, by his own reporting, had only been employed by Gorman Paving for one day previous thereto and was a brick mason who had never professionally installed patio stones. That employee, and other members of Mr. Gorman’s asphalt crew, then spent several hours discussing what should be done to correct the problem. It was quite clear that Mr. Gorman’s crew had no idea how to correctly grade an area for patio stones, as evidenced by the following events: The next day, Wednesday, September 9, the brick mason on Mr. Gorman’s crew returned—now his third day on the job—and started to continue installing the patio stones in the same manner as the day before, following the same inappropriate slope as the day before. We pointed out that all the stones installed so far were sloped toward the garage and were placed high enough to force the water between the garage wall and foundation. Mr. Gorman’s employee agreed with the problem but wished to finish laying the stones anyway, without correctly grading the area. At that time, we terminated the work in an effort to mitigate our damages, as it was obvious that our garage and its contents would be flooded during the next heavy rain. We asked Mr. Gorman’s crew to remove the stones that they had installed incorrectly so that water would drain into the ground rather than into the garage. We are now seeking another contractor to install the stones correctly. During the course of the work, we were provided with an e-mail written by Mr. Gorman and directed to a potential subcontractor. That email is dated just a few days after we hired Mr. Gorman. Mr. Gorman’s intent in the e-mail was to subcontract the paving stone work, because he did not have the crew to handle it, despite having presented himself as fully prepared to do such work when we signed the contract with him. That email message is attached. Mr. Gorman was not successful in subcontracting the laying of the stones in the area between the house and garage, and instead used his asphalt paving crew to do the work. (He did, in fact, subcontract the expansion of our front porch to King Construction--the recipient of the attached email—as well as the application of patio stones on that porch. That work appears, at this point in time, to have been done competently, so we do not take issue with that portion of the job. Moreover, although we have concerns about the driveway paving performed by Mr. Gorman, we are not presenting those issues in this complaint.) In summary, we assert that 1) Mr. Gorman deliberately misrepresented his intentions and the ability of his crew in order to induce us to sign a contract with him; 2) Mr. Gorman took on work that he and his crew were not qualified to perform; 3) Mr. Gorman made assurances and promises to us regarding the control of water flow that he did not fulfill, and, in fact, later denied that he had any intention of fulfilling; 4) Mr. Gorman’s workmanship was negligent and did not meet industry standards by failing to grade the area in such a way as to control the flow of water and avoid damage to nearby structures; 5) Mr. Gorman’s manner in dealing with us was highly unprofessional, insulting, and inflammatory, eventually resulting in his own crew physically removing him from our property; 6) Mr. Gorman abandoned the worksite, leaving unqualified workers to determine the scope and method of performing the work without any level of qualified, licensed review or instruction; 7) Mr. Gorman charged us the full, original contract price of $16,786.00 for work that, portions of which, he misrepresented to us and could not competently perform; 8) Mr. Gorman damaged our property, in that he severed our electric fence line--including completely removing a section approximately 50 feet long--despite having been cautioned repeatedly about its location and importance. He has offered no reimbursement for that damage; 9) Mr. Gorman’s contract terms are unconscionable and were used by him--after we complained about a problem with the work--to threaten and intimidate us into silence. Specifically, he threatened to walk off the job and sue us for breach of contract, to put a lien against our house, and to cancel all warranties, simply because we expressed dissatisfaction with the work. We assert that, based upon the above related facts and occurrences, Mr. Gorman should return to us $10,000.00 of the funds paid to him to cover the cost of having the patio stones laid correctly and the electric fence reinstalled. We make no claim, at this point, for our distress and inconvenience, which has been considerable. Attachments:
Printed below is the complaint we filed with the Better Business Bureau in our area against Pat Gorman and Gorman Paving of Northern Virginia as a result of the events described on this Web site. We have not yet been notified of any action that will be taken as a result of our complaint.
Our Complaint
We hereby submit a formal complaint against Gorman Paving and its owner, Patrick Gorman. Mr. Gorman’s Class A license number is 2705075084A. His published business addresses are 12216 Sour Gum Court, Gainesville, VA 20155; and 9532 Liberia Avenue, Manassas, VA 20110.
On August 29, 2009, we hired Gorman Paving to 1) adjust the size and grade of our existing asphalt driveway and apply a new coat of asphalt, and 2) lay patio stones along the side and portion of the front of our house and on our front porch, after properly grading the areas.
Our Reply to Gorman's Response
We have received your letter of September 30, 2009, along with the attached response of Mr. Pat Gorman of Gorman Paving to our complaint. We remain entirely unsatisfied with this situation. Mr. Gorman has made no effort to resolve any aspect of this dispute. In fact, his statement is nothing more than false accusations and insults. We repeat our demand for a refund of $10,000.00 of the monies paid to Mr. Gorman for work that he could not, and did not, perform and as compensation for destruction of our property.
To respond to every falsehood, insult, and abuse in Mr. Gorman’s statement would be a waste of this agency’s time, as they are irrelevant. We will, however, address the key misrepresentations of the events contained in his response.
SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS
- Mr. Gorman claims that monies are still owed by us. In fact, we paid all monies owed under all contracts and agreements with Mr. Gorman. We paid half of what was owed under the contracts on the day work commenced. We then paid the remainder of what was owed on the final day of work. Mr. Gorman himself confirmed the final amount owed, through his employee Chris, on the final day of work, and he was then provided with checks for that amount.
Mr. Gorman now claims additional funds from us while providing no proof whatsoever of any contracts or agreements to support those claims. He cannot provide such proof, because no additional contracts or agreements ever existed.
Further, we believe that Mr. Gorman’s sudden claim for additional money—which includes the suggestion that he will pursue the matter legally—is an attempt to intimidate us into not asserting our right to compensation. Thus, we assert that Mr. Gorman is attempting to illegally extort funds from us, an offense which constitutes a felony under Virginia law.
- By his own admission, Mr. Gorman permanently abandoned the worksite on the afternoon of Saturday, September 5. Work continued to be performed by Mr. Gorman’s crew for the following four days—through Wednesday, September 9—after Mr. Gorman abandoned the job. He never returned to our house after that time. He had no occasion to observe or hear any event or conversation that took place at our house after Saturday afternoon. He never observed the work of his crew after Saturday afternoon. Therefore, we assert that any statements by Mr. Gorman pertaining to any event or conversation occurring after the early afternoon of Saturday, September 5 are without sufficient credibility as to be considered by this agency. All efforts to resolve the drainage problem occurred after Saturday, so he cannot speak to any issue having to do with his crew’s ability to re-install the incorrectly laid stones, the results of their efforts, nor any action or conversation related to those issues.
- Despite Mr. Gorman’s claimed expertise in the area of laying patio stones, he clearly still does not understand how proper drainage should have been accomplished between the house and garage, though he was schooled on that point several times (see email exchange attached to original complaint). The stones installed by Mr. Gorman’s crew sloped down from the house toward the garage, thus forcing the water to find the path of least resistance into the garage. The area should have been graded to slope down from the garage and down from the house and down toward the yard, so that the water would drain to the center of the area between the two structures and out into the yard. A licensed contractor with so many years of claimed expertise in laying patio stones should have comprehended the effect that gravity has on water and should have understood how to resolve this problem.
Mr. Gorman asserts that, when the patio stones were taken up and re-installed by his crew, the water drained fine. That is not true. First, as noted previously, Mr. Gorman was not present at our house to see the re-work that his crew performed. Thus, he has no knowledge of the facts, as all work occurred after Mr. Gorman personally abandoned the job. Further, his crew only re-installed approximately 4’ of an approximately 23’ long area. There were not enough stones installed at that point to do a water test, so one was never attempted. Moreover, the stones were laid as before; i.e., with the stones sloping down from the house toward the garage. A long level placed across the stones in that direction clearly showed the grade moving down toward the garage, rather than sloping to the center and toward the yard. This fact was pointed out to Mr. Gorman’s crew, which at that point consisted only of Chris, and Chris acknowledged the truth of it. Mr. Gorman himself does not claim that the area was graded properly, stating rather that the stones were installed even with the foundation. Thus, he admits that the stones were installed incorrectly, as they should have been installed below the level of the foundation, sloping down toward the center of the area.
Because Mr. Gorman’s crew obviously did not know how to grade the area (see original complaint for details regarding their efforts), we had no choice but to have Chris remove the few stones installed at that point and cease work. We could not allow our new garage and its contents to be destroyed by Mr. Gorman’s incompetent workmanship, and there was no point in allowing him to finish the job incorrectly. Mr. Gorman, through Chris, agreed to remove the stones and stack them, along with the sand and stone dust, in the area designated by Lisa, in exchange for being allowed to terminate the work. (Note that Mr. Gorman now attempts to charge us for removing the stones.)
- Any professional who claims to be an expert in laying patio stones could, and should, have seen that there were drainage issues to be addressed as part of performing the work correctly. Any qualified, competent professional should not have required that we, as the home owners, point out that controlling drainage between two finished structures is important and, if not done correctly, would likely cause serious property damage. Even the patio stone manufacturer’s documentation instructs on how to grade the area to allow for drainage, using a consistent 2% slope away from adjacent structures, and states that it is important to address drainage issues prior to installing the stones. What we required was not the least bit unusual and should have been known to Mr. Gorman immediately and considered part and parcel of the doing the job correctly and competently, even had we not raised the drainage issues with him before contracts were signed and work commenced.
- In regard to our dog, Georgie, and her electric fence, attached is a picture of Georgie and a section of the severed fence. This section of wire was cut after Mr. Gorman abandoned the job, so he may not have been informed of it by his crew. However, Mr. Gorman was present when his crew cut the portion of the fence that ran along the front porch and garage, and he was definitely aware of that damage at the time it occurred. Moreover, Mr. Gorman knows quite well of Georgie’s existence, as he interacted with her inside our house on two separate occasions on the two days that he was present on the job site. Mr. Gorman’s crew observed Georgie being taken for walks multiple times per day for all days work took place.
In regard to the fence, Mr. Gorman and his crew were repeatedly warned about the existence and location of the fence and cautioned not to cut it. Until it was cut by Mr. Gorman’s crew, we relied on the fence to keep Georgie in the yard and safe from passing cars. Now, we cannot let her outside untethered because the fence has been severed.
Mr. Gorman owes us compensation for severing our electric fence. He has made no attempt to resolve that claim, but rather makes the ridiculous assertion that we no longer have a dog. We do, of course, have a dog. However, even if we did not have a dog, we did have a working electric fence until Mr. Gorman’s crew destroyed it, and we are entitled to compensation for the destruction of our property.
- Mr. Gorman now offers absolutely no compensation for his failure to provide skilled labor, to fulfill the terms of the contracts entered into with us, to supervise and direct the work of his crew, to perform the work in a competent manner and in compliance with industry standards, or to compensate us for damage to our property. Mr. Gorman has failed entirely to make any attempt to resolve this claim and his record with the BBB should reflect that fact.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- Claim That Additional Monies Are Owed. Mr. Gorman has never asserted to us that further funds are due; the statement you sent us is the first we have heard of this claim. You have previously been provided with the two contracts that govern this work. There were never any other contracts or agreements between Mr. Gorman and us. One contract, in the amount of $4,286.00, covered the asphalt driveway work; the other contract, in the amount of $12,500.00, pertained to the patio stone work, including expansion of the front porch. The two contracts, added together, equal $16,786.00.
The descriptions contained in each of the two contracts specify the general parameters of the work. Every item specified in Mr. Gorman’s list of tasks for which monies are still owed was part and parcel of the work included in the initial agreements. At no time did we agree to additional work. At no time were additional funds discussed. There are no change orders or contracts for additional services to be produced.
On Friday, September 4, 2009, when work initially commenced, Mr. Gorman asked for payment of 50% of the total price of both contracts. That request was consistent with the terms of the contract. We immediately provided him with a check for slightly more then 50%, as we rounded the sum up to $8,500.00.
When work was completed (with the exception, of course, of the patio stone work between the house and garage, which his crew was unable to perform), the remainder of the funds due under the contracts were paid without argument from us. Mr. Gorman sent his new employee, Chris, to collect final payment, but Chris did not know how much was owed. Lisa asked him to get an official, final figure to ensure that we were all in agreement regarding the amount of the final payment. After making a phone call to Mr. Gorman, Chris stated that the outstanding amount owed was $8,286.00. Lisa then provided to Chris two checks from two different bank accounts—one for $4,500.00, the other for $3,786.00. Thus, the full contract price of $16,786.00 was paid by us in a timely manner, in accordance with the terms of the contract (without any of the nonsensical theatrics that Mr. Gorman expressed in his statement).
Mr. Gorman has not claimed that we did not pay him in full for all amounts stated in the two contracts. He also does not claim that we failed to pay the amount that he himself claimed as owed on the final day of work. He has not asserted that we entered into any other agreements regarding additional work. He has not asserted that we ever agreed to pay additional sums for additional work. Instead, for the first time in response to our complaint to this agency, he asserts that he is owed more money.
Mr. Gorman’s claim that monies are still owed is obviously a smoke screen intended to divert attention from the real issues that we have raised regarding his lack of competence, lack of professionalism, negligence, failure to perform the work as agreed, and destruction of our property. His claims are wholly without truth or merit.
- Drainage Between The House And Garage. Mr. Gorman now denies that we discussed our concerns about proper water drainage with him at length before hiring him. However, on the day we hired him, we walked the entire site and discussed in detail the drainage requirements. As a result of those discussions and his assurances that he could and would install the patio stones properly so that water would drain away from both structures, we hired him. Absent those assurances, we would not have engaged him to do the work. As part of those same discussions, we also discussed with Mr. Gorman how the driveway would be paved to prevent water from entering the front of the garage under the overhead garage door. To accomplish that task, Mr. Gorman agreed to remove a large portion of the existing driveway so that the new driveway could be sloped away from the garage. That work was performed as agreed. Conveniently, Mr. Gorman does not mention those related discussions regarding drainage, but rather claims that no drainage issues were discussed with us prior to commencement of the work.
As for the results of Mr. Gorman’s attempts to install the patio stones to allow for proper drainage, we believe that our original complaint more than adequately explains the details of those events. Nothing that Mr. Gorman has said can alter the truth of the report that we previously gave. We will add only that, when Mr. Gorman used the garden hose to run water into the area, he did not test the entire area. In the small area in which he did spray the water, all the water from the hose immediately flowed up against the garage wall. Seeing this, Mr. Gorman turned off the water. The amount of water was entirely controlled by him. The point of the exercise was quite obviously to observe the direction of the flow of the water between the two structures; the quantity of water allowed by Mr. Gorman is irrelevant. Mr. Gorman knows as well as we do that he created a serious problem for us and that he had not addressed the drainage issues as agreed before we hired him. (His embarrassment regarding that fact is precisely why he became so enraged and proceeded to display the ludicrous and threatening behavior that eventually led to his removal from the scene by his own crew.)
- Water In Our Garage. Mr. Gorman was previously informed that the water in our garage resulted from Lisa having washed stone dust off the side of the house (dust that his crew put there and that he said he would wash off but did not). No one has ever claimed that the source of the water was rain. More importantly, the source of the water is irrelevant; the path that the water took is absolutely relevant. Because of the placement of the stones, the water traveled exactly as Mr. Gorman himself observed it travel, i.e., away from the house and against the garage wall. This time, there was enough water to cause it to find the path of least resistance between the garage foundation and the wall.
Now that the improperly set patio stones have been removed from the area between the house and garage, water does not enter the garage at any point or at any time, regardless of the amount of water present outside the structure.
- Mr. Gorman’s Claimed “Expertise”. Anyone can claim whatever expertise they choose. Unfortunately, people routinely misrepresent themselves in this manner by lying on resumes and job applications and by inducing others to hire them under false representations of their abilities. In this case, what Mr. Gorman claims as his expertise is irrelevant. What matters is whether he had the ability to actually perform the work as agreed. He did not. Mr. Gorman recognized that he did not have the ability to perform the front porch expansion, though he never told us that fact. Instead, without our knowledge or consent, he hired a subcontractor to do that work.
More importantly, as evidenced by the email provided with our initial complaint, Mr. Gorman also recognized that he did not have the expertise to install the patio stones at our house, particularly given the drainage issues. He also did not admit that lack of expertise to us. Instead, he attempted to find a qualified crew to do the work. When he failed in that endeavor, instead of then cancelling that part of the work, which was governed under a separate contract, he went forward with both jobs, having his asphalt crew lay the stones as well. The result was unacceptable and may have been disastrous had we not discovered the problem and had the stones removed to prevent having our garage flooded during the next heavy rain.
Mr. Gorman should have been honest enough during our initial meeting to admit his lack of expertise in expanding the front porch as well as in laying patio stones on grade where proper drainage is crucial. He should have advised us that he did not have a crew experienced in that sort of work and that we should hire someone else. He acted improperly when he entered into a contract with us for work he did not have the knowledge or skills to perform.
- Leveling Patio Stones On Existing Back Patio. Mr. Gorman incorrectly states that Lisa first raised the issue of the sunken patio stones when work commenced on September 4. In fact, at our initial meeting with Mr. Gorman on September 29, 2009, we both showed Mr. Gorman the two areas on our existing patio that were sunken down and needed to be raised. Mr. Gorman indicated that raising those areas would be no problem, and he would perform that work free of charge, if we would hire him to do the driveway and new patio stone work. We were fully prepared to pay to have the back patio repaired, but Mr. Gorman offered to do it without additional charge, so we accepted. If Mr. Gorman did not intend to do that work for free, there should be documentation showing that we agreed to be charged for it, i.e., a contract term or a change order, but there is nothing of the sort.
In regard to the performance of that work, we ended up getting exactly what we paid for—nothing. Mr. Gorman’s crew did not know how to level the stones and did not want to level enough stones to resolve the entire problem. Mr. Gorman himself—not Lisa, although she agreed fully with his assessment—had his crew redo the work after observing that the areas were still noticeably sunken after their first attempt. His crew tried twice to level the stones, but they were not successful. It is to Mr. Gorman’s advantage that he agreed to do that work free of charge, or else we would be asserting another complaint about work that he said he could do but could not actually perform. In this particular case, we suffered no harm from his incompetence.
- The Seven Inch Step Claim. There was never any debate regarding the height of a step. Lisa never asked her father about the height of steps. Lisa never instructed Mr. Gorman regarding the height of any step. The height of any step had nothing to do with the drainage issues.
The only time that the height of any step was discussed was when Mr. Gorman’s crew pointed out that, if they lowered the area between the house and the garage to grade for proper drainage, the step they had already installed on the side of the porch would then be too high. In response, Lisa advised Mr. Gorman’s crew not to concern themselves with the height of the step, because the drainage was more important.
- Makeshift Garage. Mr. Gorman refers to our garage as “makeshift.” In point of fact, our carport was converted to a garage by experienced, licensed, professionals, pursuant to a structural design submitted to and approved by Fairfax County. The work was permitted, inspected—at several points during construction--and ultimately approved as meeting all requirements for garage structures in Fairfax County. Mr. Gorman may call our garage makeshift if he likes, but Fairfax County does not agree. The fact that we may eventually convert the garage into an art studio for Lisa’s use, as mentioned by Mr. Gorman in his statement, is wholly irrelevant.
- Lisa’s Shirt Color. Mr. Gorman’s statement regarding Lisa’s clothing demonstrates the petty lack of professionalism and civility that he so aptly and consistently displayed to us throughout this ordeal. If Mr. Gorman had not abandoned the worksite, he would know that Lisa alternates between pink and blue work shirts and that she has several different blue shirts that she wears for working around the house. Perhaps Mr. Gorman could enlighten us on how comments regarding our clothing are relevant or helpful to resolving this dispute.
- Lisa’s Father. While it is true that Lisa’s father is a retired civil engineer with experience in the design and construction of roads and bridges, he was only consulted about this job on one point. That issue was how the new front porch and step extensions should be fastened to the existing front porch and step. When Lisa asked Mr. Gorman how the front porch extensions would be constructed, Mr. Gorman admitted that he had no idea, despite also having represented himself as expert in that work when the contracts were signed. Eventually, we came to understand that Mr. Gorman had hired a subcontractor to do the front porch portion of the job. Lisa asked her father to explain the way concrete should be joined to concrete. His response was that horizontal rebar should be drilled into the old structure and left to extend into the new extension when it is poured, thus binding the two sections of concrete together. Lisa then asked Mr. Gorman to ask the subcontractor how he intended to attach the new extensions to the existing structure. Mr. Gorman telephoned the subcontractor, who was not present on the scene at that time, then reported to Lisa that the subcontractor would connect the new extensions to the old structure via horizontal rebar, which would be drilled into the old porch. According to Mr. Gorman, the subcontractor further stated that using rebar in that manner is the only way that this type of job should be performed; otherwise the new extensions will eventually separate from the old structure. Lisa expressed satisfaction with that response, and explained to Mr. Gorman that that approach was in complete agreement with her father’s recommendation. There was never any disagreement or animosity regarding how the porch should be constructed or regarding Lisa’s having consulted with her father on the issue. There were no further conversations regarding the porch construction, nor was Lisa’s father or his opinions ever again mentioned to Mr. Gorman.
- Our Neighbors. After hearing about the horror story going on next door at our house, our neighbors would have been greatly relieved to cancel their contract with Mr. Gorman. However, as soon as Mr. Gorman realized that he had not properly addressed our drainage issues and we would not accept the work, Mr. Gorman threatened to sue our neighbors for breach of contract if they attempted to cancel their contract, even though work on their driveway had not yet begun. Mr. Gorman even informed us that our neighbors had waived their right to cancel their contract within three days, so they had no choice but to go forward with the work. We spoke at length with our neighbors that day, and they expressed regret that they had no recourse. Our neighbors resolved to get through the experience with Mr. Gorman as best they could, being especially careful to supervise his work constantly and to avoid inciting his anger, as he clearly lacks personal control. Our neighbors will most assuredly not recommend Mr. Gorman to others or hire him again themselves. Our neighbor was frequently at our house during the patio stone debacle—including witnessing water coming in the garage under the wall--and he is well aware of Mr. Gorman’s incompetence and the nightmare that we lived through.
- Tips To Mr. Gorman’s Asphalt Employees For Work Done On Driveway. Lisa did in fact give $20.00 tips to the three employees of Mr. Gorman who were present on Wednesday, September 9 and who performed the work on our driveway. Both of us felt that Mr. Gorman’s employees should not be blamed for the rudeness, incompetence, or lack of ethics of their employer. We also felt that the crew had worked hard on the driveway and tried to do a good job and satisfy our expectations. We believe that honesty and a strong work ethic deserve recognition and reward, and so we gave them a small bonus and personally thanked them for their efforts.
Mr. Gorman claims that we only tipped two of his employees. That is incorrect. Only two of the three employees that worked on our driveway were in the truck when Lisa approached; she gave each of them $20.00 and asked Oscar, who was in charge of the driveway paving, to please give the other $20.00 to the third employee, who was not present at the time. Oscar agreed to pass on the money to the third employee. Again, Mr. Gorman was not at the worksite, as he had long since abandoned the job, and could not know the truth about anything that transpired between us and his crew after Saturday afternoon.
Our giving tips to Mr. Gorman’s employees, despite being generally displeased with the way the work had progressed, is an excellent example of our consistent, general demeanor toward Mr. Gorman and his employees throughout this process. Mr. Gorman’s claims to the contrary are fabrications and reflect his own view of, and way of dealing with, the world, not ours. Mr. Gorman’s employees appeared to be no stranger to his behavior, as they removed him from the site as soon as he appeared to pose a physical threat toward us. We had the distinct impression that this was not unusual behavior for Mr. Gorman, and his crew was well versed in how to handle him in that state.
- Smiling And Waiving To Mr. Gorman. The only time either one of us caught sight of Mr. Gorman after he abandoned the worksite on Saturday, September 5 was on Wednesday, September 9, after his crew had finished paving the driveway and had left our house for the last time. Lisa went down to the mailbox to retrieve our mail and happened to glance down the street. Mr. Gorman was standing in our neighbor’s driveway, which his crew had finished paving earlier that day. As soon as Mr. Gorman saw Lisa, he ran to his truck and drove away. Lisa made no expressions or gestures of any kind. We can only speculate that—while literally running for his vehicle—Mr. Gorman mistook Lisa’s reaching for the mailbox as a gesture in his direction.
In summary, Mr. Gorman’s response to our complaint is replete with falsehoods, insults, fraud, and attempted extortion. He has made no attempt to resolve any aspect of this dispute. His record with the Better Business Bureau should be downgraded to reflect this fact.
Please let us know if you require further information regarding this complaint.
Attachments:
- Photograph of a completely severed section of our electric fence and our dog, Georgie
- Close-up photograph of severed section of electric fence showing stuck-on asphalt from portion of old driveway that was removed by Gorman’s crew
- Photograph of exterior of garage
- Photograph of finished interior of garage
- Photographs of area between house and garage in its current, unfinished state, including view of side garage door
