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:02/21/2025

  Type:Order 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.

  We hired **** and ***** ****** to build an addition on our home in ********, **. We first contacted **** and ***** 2 years before construction was to begin to ensure there was enough time to complete all requirements. However, after signing the contract and paying a $75,000 construction down payment, ***** failed to conduct his due diligence, ran up a bill dealing with the *********************** ($30,000) due to his failure to conduct his due diligence, delayed the project for over 6 months, and was so incompetent that we had to terminate the contract for cause before even being able to pull the construction permit (despite full performance of the contract on our end). After terminating the contract for cause and requesting our $75,000 be returned (as required under the contract) ***** refused to respond to us. Finally responding, ***** informed us--he no longer had the $75,000 construction down payment we provided. This down payment was not to be used on anything other than our project as we did not assent to ***** using it for any other purpose. For our addition, construction never started and no materials were ever purchased, and yet, DBBC did not have our money. **** has been non-responsive and illegally and wrongfully withholding our money for over 8 months. We have spoken with a detective regarding this situation, and law enforcement has informed us we have a strong case given the amount of evidence we have. At this time, we are still considering pressing charges.From a review of 231 CMR 4.00: Rules of Professional Conduct, 4.01(5)(f), 4.05(c), 4.05(e), and 4.05(f) would all apply in this situation. We intend to pursue this matter and retrieve the $75,000 stolen from us for as long as it takes. Theft, especially of such a significant amount, is a serious violation of legal and ethical standards. We respectfully request decisive action be taken against this thief who has violated our trust, MA law, and the ethical standards of his profession.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/25/2025

  Dear Better Business Bureau and Mr. ************** sincerely regret the challenges that arose during this project and understand the frustration this situation has caused. As the owner of Design Build Boston Construction (DBBC), I take full responsibility for the project delays and miscommunication that contributed to this outcome.
  

  Project Challenges & Permitting Delays
  This project encountered unforeseen regulatory challenges with the *********************** that significantly delayed permitting. While I recommended hiring an environmental engineer to navigate the process efficiently, budget constraints prevented this step. As a result, I took on the responsibility of handling the permitting process myself, attending numerous *********************** meetings, submitting paperwork, and working through multiple revisionsoften receiving delayed feedback from the commission itself. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, this process took longer than expected, and I recognize the frustration this caused.
  Additionally, an internal management failure contributed to project setbacks. A former project manager, who was entrusted with advancing multiple projects, failed to make progress despite repeated assurances. Once I became aware of the issue, I immediately terminated his employment, but valuable time had already been lost. While these issues were not intentional, I acknowledge that they negatively impacted this projects timeline.
  

  Financial Clarification & Use of Funds
  Mr. Kennedys claim that funds were misused or stolen is not accurate. Per the contract, the $75,000 deposit was allocated toward essential preconstruction work, including permitting efforts, administrative costs, subcontractor coordination, and regulatory compliance. While physical construction had not yet begun, substantial professional services had been rendered to move the project toward the construction phase.
  I understand that from the clients perspective, without tangible construction progress, it may appear that their deposit was not applied to the project. However, all expenditures were tied to necessary preparatory work, and at no point were funds diverted for unauthorized purposes.
  

  Legal & Contractual Considerations
  The contract outlines specific terms related to termination and deposit use, and while I do not agree with the claim that a full refund is automatically required, I understand that there is a disagreement regarding the final financial resolution.
  As stated in the agreement:
  **** was responsible for obtaining permits, which we actively worked on but were delayed due to external regulatory factors.
  Preconstruction work, including permitting and project coordination, was part of the contracted services and not refundable under the contract.
  While construction had not begun, **** was still actively engaged in preparing the project for execution.
  Despite these contractual terms, I remain open to discussions to resolve this matter.

  Commitment to Resolution
  At no point have I ignored the client. I have been actively engaged in running my business while also working through this matter in good faith. My attorney has remained in contact with the clients legal counsel, and I continue to seek a fair and reasonable resolution.
  As this matter involves a dispute regarding the amount owed, my attorney is actively handling negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. I remain open to discussions that can bring this matter to a close in a way that is fair to both parties.
  

  Corrective Actions Moving Forward
  To prevent similar issues from occurring in the future, DBBC has implemented the following measures:
  Stricter financial management controls to ensure clearer deposit allocation and transparency.
  Dedicated project oversight to prevent internal management failures like those that contributed to these delays.
  Enhanced client communication policies to ensure that regulatory delays and challenges are fully understood before contracts are signed.
  

  Next Steps
  I remain open to resolving this matter through continued discussions between legal counsel to reach a fair settlement. I appreciate the opportunity to work toward a solution and regret any frustration this situation has caused.
  

  Sincerely,
  ***** ******
  Owner, Design Build Boston Construction

  Customer Answer

  Date: 03/01/2025

  Better Business Bureau:I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # ********. Please add your rejection comments below; if you do not provide any details, your complaint will be closed as Answered. 

  The Kennedys conducted significant research to identify the right company to build an addition on our home, and after we found ***** ****** and Design Build Boston Construction (*****/DBBC), we placed significant trust in them to make our vision a reality. *****/DBBCs material breach of the contractwhich they didnt deny in their responseof not conducting their required due diligence, which was the direct cause of the delays and increased costs associated with the ******************************** (***), was a massive breach of the trust we placed in *****/DBBC.  However, *****/DBBCs subsequent actions of misappropriating our $75,000 construction down payment,withholding said down payment without justification or explanation, and now blowing us off in our attempts to simply retrieve our money which has now been wrongfully withheld for over 8 months provides insight into the predatory nature of *****/DBBC.

  Material Breach of Contract. 

  There is no question that *****/DBBC were responsible for identifying all administrative requirements in advance and addressing them in an organized and efficient manner. Instead, *****/DBBC didnt conduct their required due diligence, ended up winging it with the ***, never made any progress, and the delays and additional expenses forced us to terminate the contract for cause.  These were not miscommunications or unforeseen regulatory challenges as ***** claims, this situation is the direct result of Aricks failure to abide by the contract and conduct due diligence for our project as he was required to do.  Perhaps these challenges were, in fact,unforeseen to *****, but it was his job to ensure these challenges were identified and dealt with in advance, and he objectively failed to do so.

  The Kennedys were extremely patient and provided chance after chance for *****/DBBC to get it right (despite their disbelief as to how *****/DBBC didnt even know about the *** requirement until attempting to pull the construction permit). Moreover, the Kennedys were open to anything proposed by *****/DBBC because the Kennedys were committed to seeing their project through.  It was not until failing miserably in front of the *** numerous times that *****/**** recommended hiring an environmental engineer to bail him out.  Then, as it turns out, none of the environmental engineers wanted to assist, and *****/**** offered to pay them twice their normal rateswithout authorization from the Kennedys to do so.  (No wonder *****/DBBC is incapable of managing their clients money). Despite the Kennedys support and patience, *****/DBBC failed to gain *** approval again and again.

  After dealing with so many issues, expenses, and a growing concern about *****/DBBCs capabilities, *****/DBBC were provided notice that the **** 2024 *** hearing was the final straw, and that they had to make some level of progressnot get approvaljust to make some level of progress (an exceptionally low bar).  ***** assured the Kennedys that the **** hearing would be different than all the others and that *** approval was imminent this time.  It wasnt.  As a matter of fact, the application submitted for the **** hearing had more issues with it than the previous applications,*****/DBBC was unable to answer basic questions asked of them by the ***, and *****/DBBC couldnt provide an answer as to whether additional licenses and certifications beyond the *** were even required.  This forced the Kennedys to face the reality that *****/DBBC was not up to the job,and they subsequently terminated the contract for cause.
  

  It defies logic for *****/DBBC to suggest they spent the Kennedys $75,000 down payment (confirmed via email by *****/DBBC that it was to be used to retain subcontractors) on the *** hearings.  The parties held weekly or bi-weekly meetings before the contract was terminated, and the budget was closely monitored.  And if it were the case that *****/DBBC spent $75,000 on their dealings with the ***, why would *****/DBBC not inform the Kennedys that they had spent their entire down payment before construction began?  What was the plan if they did receive *** approval if the money was already gone? This, of course, is nothing more than *****/DBBC attempting to obscure what truly happened to the Kennedys money as they have done for the last 8 months.  

  Post-Termination Nefarious Conduct.

  On July 6, 2024, one week after the Kennedys terminated the contract for cause, *****/DBBC sent an email explaining that he no longer had any of the Kennedys money.  *****/DBBC didnt elaborate as to what happened to the money and refused to provide additional information when requested.  Shortly after informing the Kennedys their money was gone, *****/**** demanded that the Kennedys pay them even more money for their efforts with the ***.

  As if that werent bad enough, *****/DBBC have been truly deceitful in their demands for additional compensation for their purported efforts with the ***.  At first, *****/DBBC stated,via email, dealing with the *** had cost them $5,000 but they werent charging the Kennedys for that (an implicit admission that they failed to conduct their due diligence).  Then, after termination,*****/DBBC demanded $30,000.  This attempt to extract additional money from the Kennedysafter misappropriating their $75,000is yet another example of *****/DBBCs predatory conduct.

  In the same July 6, 2024 email, *****/DBBC requested until July 31, 2024 to repay the Kennedys, which offer was quickly accepted.  July 31 came and went without a word from *****/DBBC,and it wasnt for several more days that *****/DBBC even responded to the Kennedys inquiries to say they were unable to gather the funds.  They requested no extensions, provided no details about their progress, offered no initial payment, and made no commitments to repay the Kennedys whatsoever.

  Next, in late August 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement in which the Kennedys would be paid back over 10 months in equal payments.  On the day the very first payment became due, *****/***** attorney contacted the Kennedys attorney to simply state they were unable to marshal the funds.  Again, *****/DBBC requested no extensions,provided no details, offered no initial payment, did not explain what efforts were being taken, and made no commitments to repay the Kennedys.

  Most recently, *****/DBBC requested until February 28, 2025 to respond to the complaint the Kennedys filed in court (which was already 33 days past their answer deadline). February 28 came and went without anything served or filed in response.  This conduct demonstrates either the complete ineptitude of *****/DBBC or their strategy to string the Kennedys along for as long as possible while making no efforts to make them whole. 

  Conclusion

  Based on *****/DBBCs response to the Kennedys BBB complaint, they clearly fail to consider that any and all delays, additional costs, and additional time spent on the project (which they apparently decided to use to run up a huge bill on the Kennedys without informing them until the contract was terminated) was a direct result of *****/DBBCs lack of preparation, failure to conduct their due diligence, and misrepresentations regarding their capabilities.  The BBB complaint has made clear that *****/**** are fully committed to defending their public image, but they offer nothing more than empty promises, happy talk,and missed deadlines when it comes to making the Kennedys whole. 

  Since *****/DBBCs response does nothing but mischaracterize the situation in an attempt to protect their public image, cast blame on everyone else (while taking full responsibility), and provide no meaningful insight into the efforts to make the Kennedys whole, the Kennedys reject *****/DBBCs self-serving response.