Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/22/2024

  Type:Billing Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am filing this complaint in regard to a job performed by Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc., which involved the removal of a commercial kitchen hood system. The agreement was that the job would include two parts: the removal of the hood system from one location and its installation at a new location.
  
  On the day of the removal, two workers from Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. arrived on-site at 6:00 A.M. and finished the job at noon. The entire removal process took 6 hours, and I was present on-site for the duration of the work.
  Discrepancy in Billing:
  
  The original quote I received was a verbal agreement of $40 per hour with a “not to exceed” limit of $1,000. Based on the time worked, the labor should have been calculated as follows:
  
  • 6 hours of labor x 2 workers = 12 total labor hours.
  • 12 total labor hours x $40 per hour = $480.
  
  However, months after the job was completed, I received an invoice from Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. for $2,600, which was unexpected and far beyond the quoted estimate.
  
  When I inquired about the invoice, I was told by a collector that “our people make more than $40 an hour” and that the presence of two workers increased the cost. However, even if I account for a higher hourly rate, the math still does not add up:
  
  • If I assume $80 per hour (double the quoted rate), the calculation would be:
  • 12 labor hours x $80 per hour = $960.
  
  This is still significantly below the $2,600 that I was invoiced.
  The invoice of $2,600 appears to be arbitrary, and no detailed breakdown was provided that could explain how this figure was reached. I was not notified of any rate changes, nor was I informed that the original verbal quote of $40 per hour had been invalidated.
  
  Resolution Sought:
  
  I am seeking the following resolution:
  
  A revision of the invoice to reflect the original verbal agreement of $40 per hour for the 12 labor hours worked, which should total $480.

  Business Response

  Date: 11/13/2024

  Please see attached document.

  On 7/11/24 at approximately 2:21 pm Mr. ***** called Davis-Houk Mechanical asking that Davis-Houk remove a commercial hood between the dates of 7/13/24 and 7/18/24. ********* *********, Controller/Office Manager, took said service call from Mr. *****. Mr. ***** indicated that he was taking possession of a hood and would need it removed from its current location so that he could take possession and transport it to another undisclosed location, where it would eventually be installed at a later date. Mr. ***** did not ask Miss. ********* for a quote.
  *** ********* (Sheet Metal Superintendent) met with Mr. ***** at the request of ****** ******* (Service Manager) on 7/12 at the ***** ***** ****** – grocery store and discussed the scope of work. Mr. ***** stated he wanted DavisHouk to demo the existing kitchen hood as it was to be loaded into a ****** truck Mr. ***** was driving. Mr. ***** stated he wanted the work to be completed as soon as possible as the new hood needed to be taken to a new location and Mr. ***** only has the rental truck to transport the unit for a couple of days. Mr. ***** mentioned that the hood would be installed at another location at a future date. He did not specify the date it was to be installed. *** ********* informed Mr. ***** that, if Mr. ***** were to hire Davis-Houk to perform the installation work, it would be a different crew working on the install due to the location and that Mr. ***** would need to contact **** ******* in the Service Department to arrange for installation. Mr. ***** did not request a quote from Mr. ********* and did not inquire about the hourly labor costs. *** ********* scheduled a team to remove the unit as quickly as possible so as to complete the job by Mr. *****’sdesired deadline. When Mr. ********* was on-site on 07/15/24 he found that the electrical was not going to be disconnected until 7/16 at 6:00 am, meaning Davis-Houk could not start until that time. Davis-Houk had two employees onsite right at 6:00 am on 07/16/24 to complete the disconnect. Mr. ********* met both employees and discussed the scope of work, which included the following: hood removal, disconnection and demo of the exhaust duct, the make-upair duct, and the make-up air unit, and patching the remaining wall openings. Davis-Houk also had runners on-site in the morning and again at the end of the workday to deliver and remove duct jacks, these are pieces of equipment necessary to remove the heavy hood. The two employees who removed the hood spent (6) hours each on the job. Mr. ********* himself had (2) hours of work on 7/15 and (1) hour on the 16th. DHM also had two runners at (1) hour each and a service tech with (1.50) hours. While work was being completed, Mr. ***** chose to remain in the truck for the duration of the work until the hood was removed and ready to be placed into the ****** vehicle he was driving.
  Per its standard practice, Davis-Houk sent an invoice to Mr. ***** on 08/02/2024. That invoice detailed the number of work hours, trip fee, and misc. charges that were incurred for the disconnect and removal of the exhaust hood.
  On 08/07/2024 at approximately 9:14 am ********* ********* again took a call from Mr. *****. He was very unhappy with the price on his invoice alleging that Davis-Houk had promised him $42/hour labor rate for the work. Mr. ***** was informed that this labor rate was inaccurate and that no one with our company would have provided those details. Mr. ***** also alleged that work only took 6.5 hours to complete. While 6.5 hours was the total time on-site, Davis-Houk billed separately for each employee, as is standard practice with a time and material contract. In addition to this, Mr. ********* had spent time on-site previously to review and understand the scope of the work, time for which Mr. ***** was not billed. The billing Mr. ***** recieved reflects both skilled labor and runner labor to deliver and remove the necessary equipment to perform the requested work. An email message detailing Mr. *****s concerns was forwarded to service leadership so that they could contact Mr. ***** to explore a resolution with him.
  Davis-Houk employees made multiple attempts to contact Mr. ***** via phone call and **** delivered statements between 08/07/2024 and 10/10/2024 to resolve payment for invoice #****** with *** (Mr. *****)
  On 10/10/2024 ****** *******, Davis-Houk’s Service Manager, contacted Mr. ***** via phone to discuss the invoicecharges. During this conversation Mr. ***** became heated and started asserting that Davis-Houk never performed anywork for him. He claimed that Davis-Houk had not reinstalled said hood, but he never requested that Davis-Houk do that. Mr. ***** informed Mr. ******* that he was looking at a hood sitting on the ground and that Davis-Houk had not
   Page 2 November 13, 2024completed the full project. Mr. ******* informed Mr. ***** that this invoice was for the disconnection and removal only of the hood, as Mr. ********* had previously informed Mr. *****. After Mr. ***** became aggressive, Mr. ******* hung up. Mr. ***** thereafter repeatedly called Mr. *******’ cell phone until Mr. ******* was forced to block Mr. *****’s number. On the same day Mr. ***** contacted the office phone line and was directed to Miss ********* with Mr. ******* present in the room. Within moments of the call starting, Miss ********* had to instruct Mr. ***** to stop swearing. He apologized and initially complied. During the call, Mr. ***** alleged that Davis-Houk was never contacted to provide any work for him. At this point Miss ********* read Mr. ***** the email message she had taken on 07/11/2024 and reminded him of the 08/07/2024 call where he had alleged that an on-site technician provided a quoted labor rate of $42/hour and that we had been on-site for 6.5 hours performing work. After being provided with this evidence of work occurring, Mr. ***** became aggressive and started repeating that Davis-Houk did not have a signed agreement and therefore could not send him a bill. Mr. ***** then began telling Miss ********* that he did not have the hood and that Davis-Houk had stolen his property. Miss ********* reminded Mr. ***** that he had told Mr. ******* that same day that he was looking at the hood, proving that Mr. ***** had possession of the said equipment. Miss. ********* was initially prepared to provide Mr. ***** a discount in order to resolve the matter, but after Mr. ***** became aggressive with her, she chose to tell Mr. ***** that she was ending the call and that she would be contacting ***** ******* with ***** ***** to provide legal assistance with resolving the matter.
  Only after receiving formal communication from the said attorney did Mr. ***** file a BBB complaint. Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. is a trusted contractor in Central Illinois which has not received a BBB Complaint since its inception in 2006. Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. takes pride in its customers’ satisfaction and will frequently discount invoices to accommodate the budgets and concerns of clients.
  To directly address the Customer’s Statement of the Problem:
  Mr. ***** was informed that he would have to make an additional service call if he wanted to contract with Davis-Houk for reinstallation. That call was never placed and the bill in question was for the disconnection and removal only.
  All on-site employees and leadership have attested to not having provided Mr. ***** with a $40/hour labor rate. Furthermore, the rate on his complaint is different than the one he had asserted on his 08/07/2024 call to Miss *********.
  Mr. ***** is not factual with the statement that months after the completion of work he received an invoice. An invoice was sent to Mr. ***** on 08/02/2024, thirteen working days after the completion of work. His receipt of the said invoice is evidenced by his call on 08/07/2024 to question the details of said invoice. An email Miss ********* sent on 08/07/2024 is attached to this Response as Exhibit.
  The invoice is not arbitrary, it details the number of labor hours, the rate of labor, and all additional costs. The invoice sent to Mr. ***** (dated 08/02/2024) is attached to this response as Exhibit 3.
  The twelve labor hours on the day of work does not include the time of Mr. ********* to coordinate the work, visit the site on the prior date to review the scope, and the time of the Davis-Houk runner staff to deliver and remove the necessary equipment for the rood removal.
  At no point was Davis-Houk contacted for reinstallation.
  Davis-Houk thus asks that the BBB disregard Mr. *****’s complaint. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/13/2024

  To the Better Business Bureau and Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc.,
  
  
  Thank you for the opportunity to clarify and address the response provided by Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. in regard to my complaint. There are several key points of disagreement that I would like to address:
  
  
  1. Discrepancy in Quoted Rates
  
  
  Davis-Houk’s response asserts that no hourly labor rate was quoted to me. However, at the time of our initial communication on 7/11/24, I was verbally informed of an approximate labor rate that factored into my decision to proceed without a formal written estimate. If the actual rates were significantly higher or involved additional charges, it was Davis-Houk’s responsibility to make me aware of these details prior to starting the job, especially given that I never received any written documentation of their billing practices, hourly rates, or additional labor policies.
  
  
  2. Billing for Time Not Agreed Upon
  
  
  While I acknowledge that the crew worked approximately 6.5 hours on-site, the invoice from Davis-Houk charges for multiple labor hours beyond this. This includes charges for “runner labor” and other time allocations that I was not informed of beforehand. At no time did Davis-Houk disclose that they would be billing separately for multiple employees or for time beyond the actual labor on-site. Had I been made aware of these additional costs, I would have sought alternative service providers or clarified the job requirements to fit within a more reasonable budget.
  
  
  3. Mischaracterization of Communication
  
  
  The response indicates that I was uncooperative and aggressive in my communication with their staff. I assert that my frustrations stemmed from the unexplained charges and the lack of clarity in their billing practices. My interactions aimed to understand and dispute charges I felt were unfair, not to create hostility. However, Davis-Houk’s response does not address their responsibility to provide transparent billing practices and clear cost expectations from the start. Any escalations in communication occurred only after Davis-Houk continued to insist on charges that I had not agreed to.
  
  
  4. Failure to Provide a Written Quote or Estimate
  
  
  Davis-Houk’s response also omits any acknowledgment of their failure to provide a written estimate or contract prior to starting the job. As a business, it is their obligation to secure customer approval with a documented scope of work and associated costs, especially when billing by time and materials with various labor rates. If a contract or written quote had been presented initially, there would be no ambiguity in expectations, as the scope, hours, and cost of each service would have been clearly laid out.
  
  
  5. Lack of Transparency Regarding Scope of Work
  
  
  It was my understanding that the removal of the hood would be a straightforward job. The additional tasks Davis-Houk undertook, such as dismantling and patching areas, were not requested explicitly by me, nor was I informed that these extra steps would incur further charges. Davis-Houk’s assertion that I approved such work is inaccurate, and I only became aware of these extra tasks upon reviewing the invoice.
  
  
  6. Timeline and Invoice Receipt
  
  
  I did not receive any indication that the invoice would cover all the additional labor and runner hours, nor did I receive the invoice within a timeframe that allowed me to address discrepancies early on. Davis-Houk’s claim that I was invoiced promptly and contacted frequently does not align with my records. Additionally, their late response left little room for discussion, which ultimately led to the escalation of this complaint.
  
  
  7. Conclusion and Request for Resolution
  
  
  In summary, I believe that Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. did not meet its professional obligations to disclose the full scope and costs of the job. Their response does not address their failure to provide a written quote or to obtain my approval for additional charges. I respectfully request that the BBB consider these factors and work to resolve this dispute with Davis-Houk.
  
  
  My objective is to settle this matter fairly. I believe that a discounted invoice—reflecting only the agreed-upon hourly rate and the actual time on-site without additional charges for labor beyond what was performed—is a reasonable request, given the miscommunication and lack of transparency from Davis-Houk.
  
  
  Thank you for your attention to this matter.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  ******* ****** *****
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/13/2024

  Attached, you will find the invoice that was sent to me. As shown, it indicates a total of 21 billable hours, which appears inflated and inaccurate. In response to my complaint, Davis-Houk’s statement claimed I was billed for only 12 hours, contradicting the actual hours shown on their invoice. The inconsistent explanations about billing hours further undermine their credibility.
  
  The actual time worked on-site was from 6:00 am to 12:00 pm—a total of 6 hours. During this time, there were only two workers on-site, one of whom performed basic labor, mainly moving waste materials from the job site to the parking lot.
  
  Additionally, Davis-Houk’s statement falsely claims I filed my complaint only after being contacted by an attorney. However, the certified letter from their attorney is dated October 11, after I had already filed my complaint. I have also attached records of my correspondence with the attorney, showing my ongoing efforts to resolve this matter.
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/13/2024

  Attached is my correspondence with ***** ****** demonstrating my consistent and professional transparency throughout this matter. From the beginning, my account of events and my objections to Davis-Houk’s billing practices have remained clear and factual. This correspondence shows that I sought resolution in good faith, but Davis-Houk’s responses have been inconsistent and evasive.
  
  I have also attached all communications from Davis-Houk, which will further highlight discrepancies in their statements. For instance, while their response to my BBB complaint asserts that I was billed for only 12 hours, the actual invoice indicates a total of 21 hours, which includes unexplained “runner” and additional labor charges that were never discussed with me. I was also billed for work performed by multiple people without prior notification of these charges or any clear explanation for the added labor.
  
  Additionally, Davis-Houk falsely claims that I filed my BBB complaint only after receiving notice from their attorney. However, the letter from ***** ***** is dated October 11th, which was after I had already filed the complaint, as the timeline in my documents shows.
  
  I urge the BBB to review these attached documents as evidence of my consistent and fair attempts to resolve this matter, in contrast to Davis-Houk’s misrepresentations and billing irregularities. I believe these materials clearly support my position and my request for a fair adjustment to the charges.
  
  Thank you for considering this additional documentation in support of my case.

  Business Response

  Date: 12/10/2024

  Please see attached response. 

  December 9, 2024
  
  In response to the follow-up inquiries dated 11/13/2024.
  
  1. Discrepancy in Quoted Rates
  a. I was personally responsible for receiving the Consumers call and request for service on 07/11/2024.
  I can attest that I was not asked to provide labor rates to the Consumer during this call. I have also
  inquired with each staff member that worked on the Consumers project, and they have each attested
  to not having provided a labor rate to the Consumer. The Consumer was charged the standard hourly
  rate that all basic service calls receive. Had the consumer inquired at any point to what our standard
  hourly rate is he would have been provided them immediately.
  
  2. Billing for Time Not Agreed Upon
  a. As is standard practice with service providers we charge an hourly rate per hour for each
  tradesperson/worker that works on said project during the scope of work. During my 10/10/2024 call
  with the Consumer I was prepared to significantly discount the invoice, but I ended my call with the
  Consumer after the tone of the call became too aggressive to move forward. It is never the intention
  of Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. to leave any client feeling as though they have been unjustly charged.
  It is for this reason that we were prepared to adjust the invoice on this date, but the call ended prior to
  having the opportunity to do so.
  
  3. Mischaracterization of Communication
  a. Our initial response detailed the tone and demeanor of the 10/11/2024 call between the Consumer
  and myself. As stated above, my intention on that call was to provide an adjusted invoice that both
  parties felt was fair, but the tone of the call never allowed this discussion to take place.
  
  4. Failure to Provide a Written Quote or Estimate
  a. Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc., will gladly provide detailed quotations for approval whenever requested.
  I have confirmed with the Sheet Metal Superintendent and the Service Manager on this project that
  the Consumer did not request a quote prior to work. I can also confirm that a quote was not
  requested when I received the request for service on 07/11/2024. It is standard practice for
  mechanical service departments to provide time and material work in addition to quoted work and we
  are more than willing to provide quotes whenever requested.
  
  5. Lack of Transparency Regarding Scope of Work
  a. Our Sheet Metal Superintendent met with the Consumer prior to the start of work, and he asserts that
  the Consumer detailed the scope of work including the dismantling and removal of the unit from the
  location and the patching that was necessary.
  
  6. Timeline and Invoice Receipt
  a. An invoice was sent to the Consumer on 08/02/2024, thirteen working days after the completion of
  work. His receipt of the said invoice is evidenced by his call on 08/07/2024 to question the details of
  said invoice.
  
  7. Conclusion and Request for Resolution
  ? Page 2 December 9, 2024
  
  a. The goal of Davis-Houk Mechanical from day one has been to reconcile this issue in a manner that is
  agreeable and fair to both parties.
  
  
  
  The Consumer asserts that the BBB complaint was filed prior to receipt of a certified letter from our legal firm *****
  ***** however the certified letter was dated 10/11/2024 and the initial BBB communication listed a complaint
  submission date of 10/22/2024.
  
  
  Below is an excerpt from our initial response explaining that while there were 12 hours of on-site work, 6 each for two
  service technicians on the day of the removal, this time did not include the time of our Sheet Metal Superintendent to
  review and plan the work and for runner staff to deliver and remove the equipment necessary to perform the project.
  The total number of hours on the invoice in question is 18.5 as evidenced on the attached invoice.
  
  • The twelve labor hours on the day of work does not include the time of Mr. ********* to coordinate the work,
  visit the site on the prior date to review the scope, and the time of the Davis-Houk runner staff to deliver and
  remove the necessary equipment for the rood removal.
  
  
  Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. strives to be a valued and trusted partner for our clients. This is evidenced by the fact that
  in our nearly twenty years of business this is our first BBB complaint. For this reason, Davis-Houk’s desire from day one
  has been to find a resolution to this issue that is agreeable to both parties. The Consumer had asserted in a prior
  communication that he had a verbal agreement of a maximum total cost of $1,000 for this work. I have reviewed this
  with both our Sheet Metal Superintendent and Service Manager involved and neither of them agreed to this, but if this is
  the recollection of the consumer Davis-Houk is willing to discount this invoice to $1,000 in an effort to resolve this issue.
  
  Thank you for the opportunity to provide further details regarding this complaint.
  
  
  
  
  Respectfully submitted,
  
  
  
  
  ********* *********
  Controller/Office Manager
  Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc.
  
  
  
  
  Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. Service Invoice
  ** *** *****
  ****** ** *****
  *** ******** ********* ******
  Date: 08/02/2024
  License: **** ********* **********
  
  
  Billed To: *** ******** ***** ******** *****
  **** * **** ** *** ** *********** ***
  ************ ** ***** ********* ** *****
  
  Reason for Call: Remove Exhaust Hood
  
  
  Scheduled: 07/12/2024 Employee: Order#:
  Client Contact: ******* ***** ************
  
  
  Description Quantity Price Unit Ext Price
  
  Service Technician Labor 18.5000 133.000000 Each 2,460.50
  Misc. cleaners, gloves, towel 1.0000 4.790000 Each 4.79
  Trip Fee 2.0000 7.500000 Each 15.00
  
  Notes:
  7-16-2024 Disconnect & Remove Exhaust Hood
  
  
  Remit Payment to: Davis-Houk Mechanical, inc.
  ** *** ***** ****** **** * ********
  ******* ** ***** *** ***** **********
  ****** ***** ******** ** ***** ********
  ******* ** ******
  
  Thank you for your prompt payment!
  Credit card payments for invoices over $2,500.00 will be subject to a 3% processing fee.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 12/10/2024

  Response to ***** ***** 12/10 

  To the Better Business Bureau and Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc.,

  
  Thank you for revisiting my complaint regarding the handling of my hood removal and installation project by Davis-Houk Mechanical, Inc. While I appreciate the adjustment of the invoice to $1,000, the negligence and delays caused by Davis-Houk have resulted in significant financial losses and undue stress for me and my business, which must now be addressed in full.

  
  Key Issues

  
  Ongoing Financial Distress:

  
  My business, *** **** *****, was projected to open on August 30, 2024, with anticipated average revenue of $500/day based on my financial projections. However, due to Davis-Houk’s failure to complete the project as promised, I have been unable to generate revenue while still incurring overhead costs of approximately $5,000/month, which I have been forced to cover out of my reserves.

  
  Unfulfilled Commitments:

  
  I initially entrusted Davis-Houk with the project based on verbal commitments to complete both the hood removal and subsequent installation for an additional $1,000. Despite repeated assurances, these services remain incomplete, leaving my business inoperative. I refrained from seeking alternative providers in good faith, trusting Davis-Houk would honor their word after intervention by the BBB and the Attorney General.

  
  Mental and Emotional Toll:

  
  The financial burden of maintaining my business without revenue has been extraordinarily stressful. This situation has directly impacted my ability to meet obligations, creating significant emotional distress that could have been avoided if Davis-Houk had fulfilled their professional duties promptly and transparently.

  
  Request for Resolution

  
  To resolve this matter fairly, I respectfully request the following:

  
  Invoice Reduction: The $1,000 invoice should be reduced to $0 to reflect the time and resources I have lost addressing this issue.
  Compensation for Financial Losses: Compensation for lost revenue, calculated at $500/day from August 30, 2024, to the present.
  Compensation for Distress: An additional $100/day from August 30, 2024, to the present, to account for the undue stress and hardship caused by Davis-Houk’s actions.

  Final Warning with Amicable Option

  While I am prepared to take further action if necessary, I would prefer to resolve this matter amicably. I propose that Davis-Houk meet the terms outlined above by providing the requested compensation and formally committing to completing the hood installation project promptly at the previously quoted rate of $1,000.

  
  If we cannot reach an agreement by December 20, 2024, I will have no choice but to pursue legal recourse to recover damages for the financial and emotional harm caused by Davis-Houk’s negligence.
  Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope we can bring this matter to a fair resolution promptly.

  
  Sincerely,
  ******* ****** *****
  ****** *** **** *****