Complaint Review: VIP Remodeling & Renovations Inc. - Internet

Mr. Rice was sanctioned by the MD Dept. of Licensing and Regulations (DLLR) in 2010 for abandoning a project and refusing to return the homeowner's money.  At the time I initially filed my complaint with DLLR, he had abandoned a 2-week bathroom (5x8) project for four months, taking my money with him.  The money was used to pay the subs he hired to actually do the work he was himself incapable of doing.  Of course, the subs never returned to the worksite after the initial 2 days of work, undoubtedly because Rice didn't pay them.  I later discovered through the DLLR, that he was new to the business and that I was amongst his first clients, possibly the first.  In checking his references, I now know that he used friends and family members as well as another company's photos on the website that he and his wife created.  He then claimed the photos of kitchens and baths to be representations of his own work.  The website is bogus and should be taken down.

My intention in countering Steve Rice's response to my 2010 posting is to warn any potential victims: This guy is a habitual and compulsive liar.  The formal complaints made by me are a matter of public record.  Mr. Rice was called to a hearing by the DLLR and was forced to compensate me for my losses in hiring him.  They compelled him, by threatening to revoke his license, to complete the job or return my money.  A short time later, he contacted me and pleaded for a chance to fulfill his obligation.  At the same time, he confessed that he did not have the money I paid and could not return it.  Unfortunately, in a desperate effort to finish the bathroom and stem the loss of rental income, and to avoid paying attorney's fees, I allowed him back on the property to complete the job.

He left the project, after 2-3 days over a drawn-out period of 3 weeks, with a toilet that has a finger-width of space between the bowl and the tub, with no light fixture, light switch, base molding, mirror, towel rack, register cover, and walls unpainted.  In other words, the bathroom was incomplete and required another contractor to finish the job.  For my money, I got a 4 1/2-month delay; a badly done tub surround with crooked and protruding tiles (and ended short of where they were supposed to go); a badly laid out tub/toilet, so that one has to step into the tub or kneel on the toilet before turning on the spigot; and a major headache in attempting to locate the missing con artist, who was likely preoccupied with the next scam.

Mr. Rice's nonsense response about waiting for me to hire another "unlicensed contractor" doesn't even make sense, and for these reasons: (1) During the 4-month period that Steve Rice was missing, I was in contact with the Dept. of Licensing; (2) I would have forfeited an opportunity to sue Mr. Rice for all expenses associated with using another licensed contractor to finish the job; and (3) It would not have served my own best interest to tell Mr. Rice that I planned to use someone else, when at the same time I was trying to get him to return to the job site.  In fact, I never discussed my thoughts or plans with him.

Any further attempts by Steve Rice to re-invent history or to paint himself as a competent, reliable, or honorable person, will be countered with documentation.  I still retain all documents, including his emails to me.  My advice to anyone considering hiring a contractor, don't be fooled into thinking this is an honest, hardworking newbie that might save you some money.  That's what I thought, and I ended up paying 80% above and beyond what I would have paid an established company.  VIP is a sham and Steve Rice is an incompetent former construction worker attempting to make his fortune in the contracting business.  Apart from his very limited ability to nail a wood strut, he doesn't have a clue.

In rebuttal to the property owners allegations of rip off and fraud, let us say her statements are lacking in details of property owner caused delays and a lack of cooperation in bringing this contract to a timely conclusion.

In addition, please let us state this is not the complainants home it is a rental property.

Upon award of the contract to VIP, the property owner did not wish VIP to acquire the necessary permits to perform the work specified. When informed this was absolutely necessary for this job to move forward they reluctantly agreed.

Upon demolition of the bathroom in question it was determined the plumbing would have to be replaced in its entirety and not just need the minor repairs agreed upon in the original contract. The property owner then complained the additional cost was not figured into the budget they had determined for the necessary work. VIP then agreed to do the work for one third of the estimated cost of the needed repairs ($500.00 toward a $1,620.00 repair just enough to cover material with no labor compensation) to keep the job moving forward.

This completed an inspection was called for at which time the inspector determined additional insulation was required in the space below the bathroom. The property owner then once again was reluctant to pay for this additional needed work. The property owner then announced they would secure the services of a handy man (one whom the property owner has allegedly used before and an unlicensed contractor to boot) this resulted in a delay of approximately one month. This resulted in a two week delay just deciding who to use. Then another two week delay while the handy man attempted to perform the work and could not. She then reluctantly agreed to have VIP complete the necessary work for an additional charge delaying the project by one full month.

This was just the first of many property owner caused delays. More delays were caused by the in ability of VIP to reach the owner by phone or e-mail having left countless messages trying to work with owner to discuss the many problems of this project.

There was a complaint filed with the MHIC. This was rectified when VIP completed the work at a cost loss to the company. Pictures were taken for verification of the final work and submitted to the MHIC commission and the case was closed.

Upon finally resolving the problems and nearing the completion of the project, the property owner then refused to provide the necessary funds to complete the work claiming that the project had gone on far too long. They have stated that money was asked for in excess of the contract to finish. This is simply not true. That she then agreed to and paid $800.00 to provide for the final materials to complete the job. This too is a false statement. VIP paid for the materials with no additional cost to the owner who still refuses to pay the remaining balance of the contract. Word has been sent to them and to date no acknowledgement of the messages have been received by VIP.