Lorenzana & Ream
Alex Lorenzana Ripoff Contractor, failed to complete, did not build house to code

Complaint Description
Submitted in lieu of DBPR 0070 & 0060 Complaint Description
I am going to break down my complaints in six categories to make this as easy to explain and understand as possible:

1Code Violations and Safety Issues
2. Length of time (failure to complete)
3. Failure to pay subcontractors
4. Unlicensed Activity
5. Financial Malfeasance
6. Workmanship concerns

1. Code Violations and Safety Issues
Many of these issues have been listed in the report complied by Central Florida Home and Mold Inspections, Inc., and several others that have appeared since the inspection was done have been added.

A. The plans call for a shingle roof, but at our (Keith and Kelty Ori) request a metal roof system was installed. It appears that our contractor did not have the requisite license to install this system and he certainly did not obtain the proper permit to do so (see section 5), but the focus here is that the proper flashing was not used, there are large gaps at the flashing, and several panels are damaged. The contractor (Alex Lorenzana) was cited for this by the city of Orlando (see enclosed documentation).

B. The new Hardi-Board siding has substantial gaps on all exterior walls and we believe the contractor failed to install a vapor barrier between the siding and the house on both floors.

C. There is evidence of water intrusion at the rear doors and the floor is buckling, either due to water entry or poor flooring installation. The flooring was not installed over a moisture barrier.

D. The railing on the upper rear balcony is improperly and unsafely installed. See report for details. Contractor was cited by the City of Orlando for this.

E. The contractor attempted to level the floor of the existing structure to correct damage he had done, and wound up damaging the structure further. He attempted to hide this with patching plaster. Significant and as of yet un-remedied damage occurred. See report for details. The contractor went beyond the scope of his permit and at no time was this evaluated by a structural engineer or other qualified person.

F. No of the three installed staircases meet building code, for various reasons.individual staircases have different height risers, slanting treads, and risers over 9 inches. The contractor was cited for these violations by the city of Orlando.

G. The contractor failed to obtain an insulation inspection prior to installing the drywall (see included documentation).

2Length of Time
Our contract is specified to take no longer than 200 days. We are, as of this writing on 1-8-07, at 445 days from contract signing and 404 days from when work commenced.

Our lender, RG Crown Bank, has issued my wife and I a bill for $1300.00 to extend our construction loan because it has unexpectedly exceeded the 12 months it was generously issued for. The contractor has been presented with this bill and has dishonored it, despite being 100% his responsibility.

No part of this delay was caused by us (Keith and Kelty Ori) and 100% of the failure to complete is the responsibility of the contractor.
This has also caused health concerns because my pregnant wife has been exposed to construction dust for what has become an extended length of time.

3Failure to Pay Subcontractors
We have been notified by both the HVAC subcontractor and the Electrical subcontractor that they have not been paid for their services by the contractor, Lorenzana & Ream, despite the contractor having been paid in full for their services by our bank, RG Crown. Please see supporting documentation for this. At this time 90% of the funds to build have been dispersed with only the final 10% pending final inspection when the contract is completed.

4Unlicensed Activity
a. Roofing - Our plans specify a shingle roof, however at our request the contractor installed a metal roof system. Unknown to my wife and I at the time, a special roofing license (different than a general contracting license) is required to install this type of roofing, which we do not believe our contractor has. Therefore we believe he acted beyond the scope of his license and improperly installed our roof which was noted both by the independent inspector we hired, as well as the city of Orlando building inspector, which cited him for this.

B. Engineering - During the initial demolition phase of construction the contractor discovered a previously unknown concrete slab attached the rear of our house which had to be removed. This was not part of the building plan or permitted activity, and he removed the slab without consulting a structural engineer. The result was that the structure of our house settled considerably and the floors became unlevel.

The contractor's remedy for this was to jack up the foundation of the house using car jacks (still under house). This was initially unsuccessful and he shattered the hard plaster walls of one room, and actually torqued on wall laterally. This was noted as a significant failure and cause for concern in the independent inspection we had done (included).

At no time was a structural engineer consulted or additional permits sought. It is apparent that the contractor had no idea what he was doing, either in demolition or in remedying the problem.

5Financial Malfeasance
Our contractor has refused to provide receipts or an accounting of monies spent on materials and has claimed that if he spent less than an allowance for a particular item that is entitled to keep the difference rather than return the money to us. He pressured us to sign an advance with the bank for landscaping that was not performed, and one other item, telling us that it was necessary and that he would take care of it.

We have, at this point, no accounting of what allowances we fully utilized, and what were not because he has refused to provide any accounting of his expenses.
The contractor has had us purchase items (kitchen faucet, $250.00) that were included in the contract because he could not get to the store to buy them, and has not reimbursed us.

The contractor has also refused to give us choice of most allowanced materials by simply showing up with materials and installing them.
When we were given a choice of flooring he presented us with an engineered hardwood flooring only to show up with regular (non-engineered) flooring of a different color, which he installed over our concerns.
Prior to installing the metal roofing he told us it would not cost more than shingles, but once it was installed he provided us with a $2500.00 invoice, which I paid.

6. Workmanship Concerns
I understand and respect the fact that most action will be considered for the problems previously itemized and that workmanship is normally the purview of opinion and subjectivity. However, because of the grossly egregious, and almost willful poor nature of the workmanship, I feel it is important to provide some examples.

A. Flooring - The contractor installed simple 5/16 hardwood flooring on both floors of the addition, representing them falsely as being an engineered product. On the second floor he installed the flooring on a plywood subfloor that he refuses to level or otherwise repair. This has caused the flooring to drop or trough up to. 5 inch over 3 feet, presumably between joists.

On the first floor the contractor improperly installed the flooring directly onto the concrete subfloor without a moisture barrier, which resulted in immediate cupping and buckling. We notified the contractor of this immediately, and he ceased work to evaluate it, only to complete the job without providing any remedy.

The entire floor is now cupped and buckled. Our independent inspector faulted the contractor for improper techniques, and we are waiting on a second inspection from the flooring manufacturer.
The contractor has not offered any remedy despite being notified of this problem for 60 days.

B. Water - Our hot water service in the addition is non-functional, and the contractor doesn't know why. He has previously blamed a faulty tankless hot water system, but is now blaming bad plumbing. The result is that we do not have hot water service and the contractor is not making an effort to remedy the situation.

C. General - We have taken to calling the addition our Dr. Suess house because of the pronounced lack of right angles, ill-fitting doors and uneven tile installation. I suppose this must be seen to be appreciated, but workmanship in general is extraordinarily poor.

In addition, several items of responsibility, including the reinstall of the kitchen cabinets and the repair of a floor under a removed wall were done in an almost willfully negligent way. This was work that we had to repair or replace ourselves after the fact.

Company: Lorenzana & Ream
Country: USA
State: Florida
City: Oviedo
Address: 2886 N. Horizon Place

  <     >