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:12/07/2024

  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.

  Representative of Drengr Construction and father to Contractors license holder, a Mr. ****** (***) ********* presented 3 contracts on 10/10/24, one for the remodeling of a primary bathroom into a handicapped accessible bathroom. A 50% deposit of $5531.50 was required to begin construction on 10/17/24. Two months later and no work has begun. Mr. ********* admits no materials were ever ordered. Mr. ********* agreed to refund our deposit for the handicapped bathroom both verbally and in writing but to date has made excuses for delivering a check and refuses now to refund our deposit. As the 60 days passed, a second contracted project was attempted by Drengr Construction. On or about 10/14/24, NMCID issued a red tag on the project and no work can go forward until released by NMCID department. The Contractor license holder #******, Mr. ******* *********, didn't visit the project until the day after the State issued the red tag. Mr. *** ********* stated in writing he couldn't find an engineer to approve his proposed corrections to comply with State requirements to proceed. The State has indicated there are many engineers available to compile a report. Using this loophole, Mr. ********* now claims he can't find an engineer. Drengr has effectively taken our money and our only recourse is to begin again with a different company who'd be willing to take on a project already red tagged by the State of New Mexico and will likely need torn down. This will require the partial building's demolition, then repairs to the adjoining home for other damage caused by Drengr and reconstruction of the project. This effectively means we will have paid for the project twice as Drengr is not in a financial position to refund this money either. Drengr Construction has received to date $15,543.20 toward this second contract which is now red tagged. We are out a total of $21,074.70 and have nothing but a partially complete, 10 X 14, NM Building code violating structure to show for this money.

  Business Response

  Date: 01/17/2025

  Please see the attached business response

  Dear ******** *******:
  
  The following is a letter of brief explanation and answer to the complaint filed against Drenger Construction, LLC (Builder) regarding improvements to the home or ***** and **** ****** (Owner).
  
  Builder entered into three separate contracts with Owner. The agreed order of completion was to be the concrete slab, the closet addition, and the bathroom remodel. Builder and Owner signed each contract, thereby agreeing to the terms and conditions stated therein.
  
  After the concrete foundation for the 10’’ x 14’’ room prepared and the footing poured **** advised Builder (*** ********* specifically) she wanted the room size increased to 10’ x 14’ inside diameter. This is very unusual , but not completely unheard of. 
  
  Builder re-dug the foundation area and poured additional concrete to comply with the Owner wishes; at no additional charge. 
  
  Builder framed and dried-in structure.
  
  After the structure was framed Owner (**** ******) stated she did not want to step down approximate three inches into the room from their bedroom. Moreover, the exterior door of the room was acquired but **** ****** changed her mind and insisted the door open from the opposite side than was originally agreed. The special order door had to be reordered. It cannot be returned.
  
  Builder entered into an Addendum to raise the floor as requested. However, only the sub-floor has been installed. Builder advised Owner on at least five occasions the permanent floor would be installed after the drywall and painting were completed.
  
  After Building the elevated floor, Owners asked that it be insulated. So…Builder removed the 23/32” tongue and groove Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and installed solid foam insulation, and then reinstalled the OSB sub-floor.
  
  I am sure you have gleaned from this answer the level of frustration was rising throughout the process of building. 
  
  The concrete slab was poured and finished per the plans, CID requirements and the written contract.
  
  While the CID inspector was inspecting the footing for the concrete slab he looked at the 10’x14’ (interior dimensions) room and placed a red tag (notice of work stoppage) upon it; stating we needed to acquire a building permit.
  
  Builder contacted CID and made it clear via the accepted New Mexico Building Code that a structure which is less than 200 square feet in size and/or that is to be used as a storage room (i.e. closet) the is NO PERMIT required. Rather than correct the mistake of the relatively new Inspector the person of authority directed Builder to acquire the services of a New Mexico State Licensed Engineer to address the issue.
  
  Builder has contacted eleven engineers. However, this was during the holidays and no one would return our calls until after the new year. Several of the engineers only work in the commercial or industrial fields. Others stated they were too busy to take on the work. Two engineers from Las Cruces have responded and are interested in working with Builder to resolve this issue. Both engineers have appointments with Builder Tuesday (01-14-25) and Thursday (01-16-25); respectively.
  
  Just prior to Christmas, 2024, Owner asked that Builder not begin the repairs to the bathroom until after the holidays; sometime in January, 2025. Builder agreed. However, in keeping with previous decisions made by Owner, **** ****** decided to cancel the contract completely. 
  
  Moreover, Owner tendered a complaint against Builder with the The Construction Industries Division (CID). CID has not provided Builder a copy of the complaint filed by Owner.
  
  CID investigators for CID are New Mexico Certified Law Enforcement Officers. Therefore, the unfounded complaint by Owners against Builder triggers limitations regarding direct or indirect contact with the Owner.
  
  Owner contacted *** ********* by text messaging. *** responded by explaining the limitation regarding contact between the two parties.
  
  In closing; 2023 NM Statute 37-1-23 Contractual Liability; statute of limitation provide the Owner a three day “cooling off period” after signing a contract. Owner’s decision to not go forward with the contract was well beyond the three day period prescribed by law.
  
  GENERAL RULE: Contract Effective When Signed
  The general rule is rule is that when an individual accepts and signs a contract with another party, they are considered to be legally bound to that contract; absent any clause or statement within the contract to the contrary. For example, unless a contract contains a specific rescission clause that grants the right for a party to cancel the contract within a certain period of time, a party cannot back out of the contract once they have agreed and signed it.
  
  New Mexico provides a three day cooling off period with regard to cancelling a contract. Owners decision to cancel the contract was well beyond the three day Rule.
  
  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: Some types of sales cannot be canceled, even if they occur in places the cooling off Rule may normally cover. The Rule doesn’t cover sales that are made because Owner asked Builder to visit their home to repair or perform maintenance or improvements on their personal home. In addition, the Rule does not cover sales that involve real estate and home improvements.
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 01/29/2025

  RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT ANSWER FROM DRENGR CONSTRUCTION
  
  We met and vetted a licensed contractor for Drengr named ****. **** subbed in *** ********* who is neither a licensed Contractor nor a Qualifying Party and unrecognized by the State of New Mexico Licensing Department to contract or construct. **** never set foot on our property until they were caught by NMCID without a permit and our project red tagged. Their first red tag they claimed. A lie.
  
  Mr. *** ********* addressed none of my complaints but attempts to distract with falsehoods. To wit:
  
  In his answer, lies in Paragraph #2 regarding completion order. Project order was clearly underscored twice before contracts were signed. #1 Handicapped Bathroom, #2 Addition, #3 Workshop Foundation. No contracts indicated order, as he implies here. *** pretended verbally and in writing he placed orders and got permits. Also lies.
  
  Para #3. Another lie. There were NEVER any footings poured for the Addition, one of the more serious NMCID Building Code violations on this structure. *** literally built our Addition on the sand.
  
  Para #4. *** poured additional concrete adjacent to an existing, sloped patio slab in such a way it violated NMCID Building codes. *** made the foundation the wrong size TWICE and laid it in the wrong direction. Also a lie, *** in fact charged us an additional $4880 for corrections to his blunders.
  
  Para #6. All lies. Our home is built on a slab foundation. The Addition was to be on a slab foundation per the contract. It was explicitly detailed prior to signing contract there was to be a continuous floor from existing Master bedroom into the Addition. Any built up wood flooring is a breach of said contract. The exterior door *** needed was already on our home and new. It was to be moved to the new exterior opening - as he clearly stated would be done in the contract. The door swing on the existing, already owned door was correct. No exterior door needed to be ordered. In fact, *** did not order a door.
  
  Para# 7. *** forced us to pay for a “floor system” when I pointed out the concrete floor of the Addition was 3” below the existing home creating a step down. To our surprise, no more concrete was added to raise the floor. He raised the floor with wood. This breaches the contract signed by both parties. *** also placed this wood on top of a patio slab sloped for drainage, creating a slope in the new Addition floor. *** also never mentioned a permanent floor would be installed after drywall and paint. More lies.
  
  Para #8. We tried to be flexible with the surprise wood floor but it sounded hollow underneath and squeaked terribly. It wasn’t acceptable. *** agreed it had problems and said he would solve them by insulating underneath to help deaden the sound and screwing the T&G OSB down more. This didn’t work. I asked a worker one day when *** wasn’t there if there was insulation under the wood floor and he said “No”. *** had lied to us again. He charged us but didn’t insulate the floor. We insisted it was done. The extra charge wasn’t fair to us as it was a solution to a problem *** caused while breaching our contract for a concrete floor. At our own expense, we purchased a special foam floor pad for the room to assist in noise reduction. We are now stuck with this specialty pad as it won’t be needed when the Addition is condemned, demolished and built correctly to code by a licensed contractor.
  
  Para #9. Ditto. I am sure you have gleaned from this, the level of frustration was rising throughout the process of building.
  
  Para #10. *** departs from Project #2, the Addition build, and without clarity or cause is now randomly commenting about a different project. Referring to Project #3, a concrete slab for a future workshop ***’s hoping you infer he’s talking about the Addition. He is not. In fact, the slab referenced here, I found was the wrong size and in the wrong place. *** neglects to mention it also failed the NMCID Inspection.
  
  At this point, we’re extremely concerned as to his competency and had lost count of the lies told to us.
  
  Para #11. *** had constantly deceived us – even in writing – pretending he had permits. The NMCID Inspector confirmed that was a lie.
  
  Para #12. More lies. *** cannot understand NM Building Code Manuals. They clearly state Additions require a permit. Ours is attached to an existing home, not free-standing. It doesn’t fall into the excluded category for tool storage, nor a child’s playhouse nor a chicken coop. With HVAC from the main home, electricity, a window, exterior entrance, ceiling fan- it is a room Addition to a home. Therefore, a permit is REQUIRED. *** is required to have an engineer correct his multiple code violations because he tried to avoid a permit which would have demanded immediate corrections to all his errors. The Addition initially will be a dressing room/prayer room but was designed as a bonus room which could also be used by our heirs as a baby nursery or home office as it has its own separate gated entrance. *** was contracted to add a room. What we use it for is our business, not his. *** utilizes “closet” in an attempt to circumvent NMCID permit requirements and instead use rules for “storage”. The red tag proves *** wrong.
  
  Para #13. Who even knows if this paragraph is true, few of the others were. *** didn’t meet with engineers on the dates and times he offered in this response. NMCID has contacted him 3 times for additional info and he refuses to reply. He’s been given a final date to comply with their demand.
  
  Para #14. Lies. This conversation was approx. 5:30pm, November 21, well before Thanksgiving not “just prior to Christmas” as he falsely states. *** agreed focus should be placed on the Addition’s red tag and admitted he’d ordered nothing for Project #1, the Handicapped Bathroom. He agreed to cancel the contract for Project #1 verbally on this night, 2 other times and in writing. *** falsely labels this as a “repair”. Untrue. I have tripped getting into the tub/shower combo multiple times creating an urgency for safety. Our current bathroom has new components, is quite attractive and functions perfectly. *** was contracted to replace regular fixtures for handicapped ones for my diagnosed and increasing disability. This mischaracterization is an attempt to rely on the FTC 3-day rule which he butchers and pastes in his answer. Deleting in pertinent part, *** attempts to support taking our money for this project and provides no goods or services. *** must believe the FTC was created to authorize theft.
  
  Para #15. I sure did!
  
  Para #16. Another lie. NMCID verified they in no way restrict, oversee or limit communication between two parties. Asking an inspector to verify ***’s claim I was told flatly, “That’s a lie.” Limiting communication is in an attorney’s purview. Regardless, I’ve not contacted *** after his fake request.
  
  Para #17. This, and paragraphs 1 and 15 are the only mostly true statements in ***’s answer.
  
  Para #18. *** fails to understand that his agreement to cancel and refund relieves him of any support therein. Additionally, he wasn’t hired for “repairs or maintenance” so the 3-day Rule doesn’t apply. This is directly from an agent at the FTC.
  
  Para #19. As I stated above in Para #14 response, *** did finally admit to us November 21 he’d ordered no product or permit. The FTC 3-day Rule doesn’t condone theft as he believes. *** agreed he was struggling with Project #2, the Addition. He agreed to cancel and refund our money on Project #1, which he never started. As no “repairs or maintenance” were contracted in this or any project and *** agreed verbally and in writing to cancel, his FTC defense he attempts to apply in this circumstance is invalidated.
  
  To summarize, *** provided and signed our contracts stating he would comply with “all State and Local Building Codes”. He did not.
  
  ***, in our contract states he’s “properly licensed and in good standing with the Construction Industries Division within the State of New Mexico.” He is not. Neither is Drengr Construction, LLC.
  
  We primarily cancelled the contract for Project #1 due to obvious incompetence and 6wk start delay. If he can’t legally and to code construct a “dry” room, he certainly shouldn’t be trusted with plumbing.
  
  Additionally:
  
  *** prematurely demanded a second payment (30% installment) described in the contract on Project #2 without completing indicated items, thereby breaching the contract.
  
  *** fails in his answer to explain why his contracts state he would obtain permits, but he in fact, did not. If he believed, incorrectly but strongly, a permit wasn’t needed, why didn’t he say so? He instead pretended he’d gotten them. Our discussion both verbal and written centered on the Addition needing a permit in the instance of sale or mortgage, receiving a Certificate of Occupancy, increasing square footage to the home’s total, insurance required to cover additional square footage and overall home value with the improvement to the home. A permit is required in Project #1 to put in the handicapped shower. Project #3 needed a permit so a workshop could be built on it in the future. He agreed and acknowledged these points even suggesting himself the value add for Project #2 was 1.5 times cost.
  
  Without our knowledge or permission, *** attached the Addition’s roof to our existing home instead of a drop-down gable as detailed and agreed. This caused damage to our roof, shingles and an unsightly bump as he used roof sheathing of a differing thickness attempting to marry the two. He claimed the shingles would lay down in the summer heat. NMCID got a chuckle from this lie. Inside, the ceiling is constructed incorrectly to install insulation required by code. *** also made our custom, continuous gutter on the existing home come to an abrupt stop and now has to be replaced.
  
  *** puts one thing in the contract and then does what he wants and builds what he wants, how he wants. If cornered on something he did wrong he labels it a “change”. That’s because it’s a change from what he planned to do. He accepts zero responsibility for anything. Every mistake is someone else’s fault. He believes he knows better. Better than what you want, need or even contracted for.
  
  *** fails to address the money he’s taken from us without providing the agreed services in the contracts. *** fails to refund unearned money he took for a project he agreed to refund when he never began the project. Indeed, he is incapable of fulfilling the contracts. *** breached all 3 of our contracts. Contracts which NMCID characterizes as Contracting Without a License, charges which have been filed against him in Otero County, NM. Publicly available court records in Indiana and Tennessee reveal similar shenanigans. Drengr Construction appears to own no equipment and I observed he rented or borrowed most equipment even something as simple as a grinder. In my opinion, he is little more than a present-day carpetbagger.
  
  AVOID THIS “BUILDER”.