Christopher G Frye

Diana , hired us to conduct a Main Service upgrade for her home, a task which we have done hundreds of times. Within 3 days of her hiring our company, we had her permit for the work. Once we had the permit with the City of Tucson, Tucson Electric Power (TEP) was alerted and they came out to do their standard site inspection before scheduling a disconnect/reconnect so we could install her new panel. TEP informed us the wires going from their connection point to Diana home was undersized so needed to be increased in size. This requires a relatively long, deep trench. Usually we'd sub-contract this out but Diana became quite emotional crying with much gusto, saying she didn't have the money to complete this project. So, forgoing the usual and normal markup from our subcontractor we introduced them to Diana so they could work with her direct and avoid the standard mark-ups. The subcontractor, like us, is a seasoned and experienced contractor, but after three weeks of trying to deal with Diana, called me to inform us they would not work for her. At that point, Diana unilaterally canceled the contract with us and filed a formal Complaint with the Registrar of Contractors (ROC), under penalty of perjury. The next business day after we filed our Response with the ROC and pointed out that Diana had perjured herself in claiming that "nothing promised was done," and claiming we had not gotten her a permit (we supplied a dated copy of the permit which demonstrated to the ROC she had perjured herself) Diana immediately withdrew her Complaint, presumably fearing prosecution for Perjury. Diana also claimed there was no written contract, but in fact, her husband had signed our contract and she had viewed that signed contract the morning she filed her Complaint with the ROC, on our CRM. That too we showed to the ROC, and that too must have influenced Diana to withdraw her Complaint to avoid a Perjury charge. Because she refused to withdraw the above Review and BuildZoom, knowing the Review is defamatory and libelous, refuses to withdraw same, we have had to, regrettably, prepare a lawsuit against them both, as one's reputation is the only thing you take with you through your professional career. I am an engineer and licensed contractor in other states besides Arizona, working throughout the U.S. and abroad. This is why we have no choice but to force, through the courts, Diana and BuildZoom to remove this Review. To close, if any contractors are reading this, we would strongly recommend you carefully consider working for this individual. My subcontractor, Dead Horse Construction fired her and my CFO, told me early on, not to work for her. I should have listened to my CFO!

Mr. St. Peter was doing a major remodel on his home and property including big changes to his home and an outbuilding. Mr. St. Peter hired a General Contractor, who, regrettably, embezzled over $75,000.00 from Mr. St. Peter and much more from many other homeowners. As honest, licensed, bonded and insured contractors for over 20 years, we are very sorry to hear this and we have turned in over a dozen unlicensed contractors in our long career as electrical and engineering contractors. We have done hundreds of Main Service Upgrades identical to the one we performed for Mr. St. Peter. His was complicated by his numerous delays due to his scheduling issues and his lack of financial resources. SRP, the Utility for Mr. St. Peter's neighborhood also delayed the project once. We also, had to reschedule one time, due to our commitments out-of-state as we are licensed in other states besides Arizona. We believe that Mr. St. Peter took out his rage against the General Contractor on us, the closest target as he hated all things Contractor. One can hardly blame Mr. St. George for this however, as the victims of his rage we cannot have this defamatory and perjurious Review remain in the public domain. Mr. St. Peter withdrew his Complaint with the ROC as he realized it was perjurious and filed out of anger, not based on factual events. He had also agreed over two years ago to remove this Review and we thought he had kept his word. Just this month we discovered he had not honored this agreement and kept this Review in the public domain. Having asked him nicely many, many times, first when the work was done over two years ago and just recently, Mr. St. Peter has refused and likely feels the rage of having over $75,000.00 stolen from him by a rouge Contractor. While this rage is directed at himself, he continues to take it out on us, leaving us with no choice but to clear our otherwise stellar reputation through the legal processes. We still wish Mr. St. Peter the very best and regret having to initiate an Action which leaves no one as a winner, regardless of the outcome.