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:03/06/2025

  Type:Service or Repair 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.

  On 21 August 2024, **** ****** of AK Construction provided a written quote for foundation work on ************************************************************* This work needed to be done to obtain a COC from the city of **********, and I was under a deadline to get it done. ****** promised to do the work while I was out of town, during the first week of September, and requested 25% upfront. I provided $16,250 on a credit card over the phone, and left the keys to the property in a lockbox, as requested. Upon returning home, ****** had not performed any work at the property. I continued asking for updates, until I requested he return my deposit or perform the work in October 2024. ****** said he would need more money - and I felt cheated as he had already provided a written quote which was signed and agreed to. I again asked for a return of my deposit, which - as of March 2025, ****** still has not provided. He has had months to either do the job I paid him to do, or return my money, and he has done neither. If he doesn't return the money, I will file a fraud complaint with the police.

  Business Response

  Date: 03/06/2025

  This is from a licensed structural engineer I provided to customer and said there was triple the amount of work 

   

  
  ******* Engineering

  October 7, 2024
  AK Construction
  c/o **** ******
  ***********************
  ****************
  RE: referenced property
  Property: ******************************************************************
  Engineering Consultation for Building Foundation Stability at the above
  Dear ****:
  At your request an engineering consultation regarding the above property was performed on Sept.
  4, 2024. The primary purpose of our engineering services and this report is to report on our
  preliminary and brief observations of building structure from the exterior and basement.
  BACKGROUND
  Our original scope of work was to visit the site for assessment of project goals, existing conditions
  and concepts of repair pertaining to 1st floor framing. While onsite it became apparent that the
  building has significant foundation issues. Since the 1st floor framing relies on the foundation to
  be stable, the condition of the foundation became the primary concern. While onsite, it was agreed
  that ************************** would not provide a repair concept for 1st floor framing. Subsequently,
  it was requested that ************************** provide this report on foundation observations.1
  SUMMARY
  The left half of the building is supported on stone masonry piers on the sloping north bank of the
  Piscataquog River. The bottom of the piers are leaning significantly downslope. They do not have
  frost protection, and loss of soil/boulders from under one was observed. Detailed inspection at the
  base of others was not performed.
  1 Phone conversation on September 30, 2024 with Mr. ******* Time at site was limited to 1 hour or less due to
  departure of resident. The brief time on site and change in scope significantly limited observations.There is a longitudinal drystack stone wall that separates the main basement on the right half of the
  building from the open crawlspace om the left half of the building. This stone wall also has no frost
  protection and appears to be moving downslope.
  It is suspected that the bank of the river is moving downslope, not just the foundation of the building.
  Trees adjacent to the building are leaning significantly downslope.
  The post and beam superstructure of the building appears compromised due movement of its
  foundation. Evidence of significant movement of wood framed walls and floors was also observed
  from within the basement. There was also observed 1st floor framing rot and breakage. Based on
  limited accessibility and time, the undersigneds overall impression of the superstructure of the main
  building was that the superstructure is in fair to poor condition.
  There is a bridge immediately to the front of the building. Access to the left side of the building and
  the adjacent riverbank would need to be via the river from downriver of the bridge or upriver. The
  undersigned is not aware of any nearby river access.
  While more investigation is warranted before coming to a final conclusion regarding a cost-effective
  approach to stabilize this building, the undersigneds overall first impression indicates that it would
  be more cost effective to raze the building and rebuild it after stabilization of the riverbank than to try
  to repair the building and stabilize the riverbank with the building present.
  LIMITATIONS
  This report is the complete response to your request for a study of this property. It is for your use
  and other stakeholders involved in the impending repair or replacement of the property only.2 If
  you have any questions about this report, please call the undersigned for clarification.
  As you requested, these engineering services are limited in scope, focusing on the foundation only.
  No intrusive explorations were performed; therefore, all conclusions are based on observations,
  measurements and basic construction knowledge.
  2 Should other(s) need to rely on this report, please contact us to request permission.
  159 So. Main St. AK Construction October 7, 2024
  **********, ** c/o Knight Page 2As Professional Engineers, it is our responsibility to evaluate available evidence relevant to the
  purpose of this study. We are not, however, responsible for conditions that could not be seen or were
  not within the scope of our service at the time of our visit.
  DESCRIPTION
  This is an antique3 post and beam mixed-use building located on the north bank of the Piscataquog
  River. There is a bridge crossing the Piscataquog River located immediately adjacent to the front of
  the site.
  There is a rear attached garage with living space above. The garage structure appears newer than the
  main building and appears to have a cast-in-place concrete foundation. The garage is not a subject of
  this assessment.
  For the purposes of this report, the front of the building is assumed to generally face South Main
  Street. All directions are from the point of view of an observer standing in the front of the building
  and facing it or the points of the compass.
  OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
  There are trees and other vegetation on the bank of the Piscataquog River. Significantly leaning tree
  trunks were observed (Photo 13). These are strongly suggestive of movement of soil in the slope.
  The cause or mechanism of slope movement and its extent should be assessed by a geotechnical
  engineer.
  There is an enclosed basement. It has interior width (in-to-in) of about 24 ft. There is an open
  space under the left half of the building and over the bank of the Piscataquog River. The left half
  of the building appears to be supported entirely on log columns on drystack stones or stone
  masonry piers.
  There is a drystack stone wall aligned longitudinally in the middle of the building that separates
  the left side from the right side. This wall appears to fill in the space between the wood columns
  3 The assessor database shows that it was constructed 1930. Based on the style of construction, the building appears
  to be older than this. It may have been renovated as apartments in the 1930s.
  159 So. Main St. AK Construction October 7, 2024
  **********, ** c/o Knight Page 3and therefore, is deemed intended to enclose the basement only; it does not appear to be a bearing
  wall or provide foundation support.
  SUPERSTRUCTURE
  The superstructure is constructed in the post and beam style. ***** are about 10 ft. on-center.
  Measured main level floor joists were rough cut 6x8, spanning about 11 ft. and spaced about 5
  ft. on-center. There appear to be 1 to 1-1/2 thick wood planks bearing on and spanning between
  floor joists. Floor joists are supported on the right side by a drystack fieldstone foundation wall
  and elsewhere on beams on columns.
  Three rotted or broken floor beams were observed on the right side of the building in our original
  study area.
  There is a longitudinal framed wall in the approximate middle of the basement that leans
  significantly downslope. There is wood sheathing at basement floor level on the left side of the
  building that slopes significantly down towards the river.
  There is charred framing in the vicinity of the bottom of the basement stairs. The depth of charred
  wood does not appear significant.
  Lateral and vertical braces comprised mostly of timber are used to support the underside of the
  basement. This bracing is not supported with foundation units. The bottoms of wood braces
  penetrate soil and are water stained or deteriorated due to soil moisture.
  FOUNDATION UNITS
  Right side stone masonry was observed to be bowing into the basement. No evidence of recent
  movement was observed.
  Wood posts within the middle basement wall bear on drystacked stones bearing on or likely within
  inches of ground surface. Wood posts on the left side of the building bear on piers bearing on or
  likely within inches of ground surface.
  There are 12 piers below the building. They are comprised of stone masonry. The bases are wider
  than the tops. It appears that their bases were provided with extra coating of concrete. At the top
  of the bases, there is a structural hinge and significant bow. The bases of the piers lean downslope
  159 So. Main St. AK Construction October 7, 2024
  **********, ** c/o Knight Page 4while the tops of the piers lean upslope. This is caused by downslope tipping or movement of the
  bases and the lateral restraint of the tops of the piers by the building framing.
  Soil loss below the base of several piers was observed to leave voids.
  The bridge abutment immediately adjacent to the building is being used to prop up the front of the
  building with a cable and framing.
  CONCLUSION
  If the owner would like to consider saving the building, then a geotechnical study of the slope
  stability should be first priority. An overall structural assessment of the building should be second
  priority.
  The building as observed from the basement and underneath the basement is in poor condition.
  With the exception of the fieldstone wall observed on the right side of the basement, foundation
  units that were observed appear to be failing and should be replaced. A stability assessment of
  piers, isolated footings and basement drystack stone walls supporting the structure should be
  performed as part of a decision to raze or renovate the building.
  Preliminary observations of wall plumbness and eave alignment also indicate significant
  movement of the superstructure. Based on the undersigneds experience with movement of post
  and beam structures, it is likely that mortise and tendon joints within walls and flooring have been
  significantly compromised. Further investigations, including intrusive explorations, would be
  needed to assess the integrity of the superstructure.
  159 So. Main St. AK Construction October 7, 2024