Dave submitted a response to the Better Business Bureau regarding a complaint filed by J.M. and her husband. The latest information he received on the matter said his response was reviewed and accepted, and the case closed. The following is the truthful sequence of events he relayed to the BBB regarding his experience with this customer.

Dave first worked for J.M. and her husband a couple of years prior to having any issues with them. At that time, he completed a roofing project to their satisfaction. Dave personally performed the work with an associate and did not use subcontractors. He additionally financed the shingling of their barn, believing it would not survive the winter otherwise. The homeowners were told they could pay when able, without any pressure. They paid as agreed several months later, and Dave never invoiced them. This was the conclusion of his first interactions with J.M, and her husband.

The following year, J.M. and her husband requested Dave do a siding project for them. Due to workload constraints, he was unable to take on the project the first year but agreed to do so the following year because the exterior of the home was in poor condition. The project required special-order siding, which caused initial delays due to supplier availability.

Dave hired experienced subcontractors (not employees) to remove the existing clapboard, install house wrap, and complete the siding. During the project, J.M.’s husband frequently interrupted and questioned the crew’s work despite their qualifications. He also prohibited work during rain or snow, although winter siding installation is common practice. As a result, subcontractors sometimes traveled long distances only to be sent away upon arrival. These crews were paid hourly, and the repeated work stoppages resulted in significant financial loss to Dave on this project.

Throughout the project, Dave received frequent and lengthy phone calls from the homeowners—sometimes multiple times a day. These conversations were repetitive and interfered with his ability to manage scheduling of his other projects.

One legitimate concern raised by the homeowners involved suspicion that a subcontractor may have been drinking on the job. Dave does not permit such behavior and asked how the homeowners wished to proceed. At that time, J.M.’s husband asked Dave not to address the issue, stating he was satisfied with the work quality. Subsequently, the homeowners did request his removal, and Dave complied. The subcontractor was reassigned to another project and received a five-star positive review from that customer.

Dave attempted to resolve the situation by assigning additional and alternative crews, including larger teams as well as a subcontractor to act as project manager. Despite these efforts, multiple crews experienced confrontational behavior from J.M.’s husband, including accusations and constant interference. Several subcontractors refused to return to the job. On two occasions, police were called—once by the homeowners and once by a subcontractor. After the final police involvement, Dave was advised to wait for clearance before resuming work; that police clearance was never provided.

J.M. was consistently pleasant and reasonable; however, she worked full time and was not present for most of the project. Dave’s primary difficulty stemmed from the extensive time lost due to interference by J.M.’s husband. The project was not structured as time-and-materials, so these delays were not billable to the homeowners and were absorbed entirely by Dave.

At the time work ceased, only two boxes of siding remained, primarily related to a new room the homeowners requested. Dave’s company demolished an existing structure and began construction of a new 16' x 8' room to replace it, including doing the foundation work, installing sonotubes, and framing the deck for it. After materials were purchased and the aforesaid portions of the project completed, the homeowners changed the scope, requesting that the work to that point be removed and replaced with a much smaller pantry space instead.

Dave repeatedly expressed his desire to complete the original contract and close out the project, regardless of financial loss. However, repeated scope changes, work interruptions, and confrontational behavior prevented completion.

In the final in-person interaction, the homeowners arrived unannounced at Dave’s residence, behaving aggressively and using profane language in earshot of his family, including young grandchildren. Dave advised them to coordinate directly with the subcontractor managing the project due to ongoing scheduling concerns involving J.M.’s husband.

In summary, Dave believes he was prevented from completing the project in order to avoid payment of the final balance. The homeowners’ claim that 30% of the work remained is inaccurate. The siding portion represented approximately 90% of the project, with only minimal material left to install. A substantial outstanding balance would have been due upon completion of installation of the siding.

Dave submitted a response to the Better Business Bureau regarding a complaint filed by L.P. and her husband P.P. He later received notice stating his response was reviewed and accepted, and the case closed. What follows recounts the truthful sequence of events and resulting financial harm caused by L.P and her husband P.P to Dave Reilly in connection with the construction of their custom (ICF) home. CLICK HERE to see the scope of work Dave completed for this couple prior to them barring him from the project. The PDF at the LINK includes an objective (unbiased and unemotional) A.I. analysis of the value of the work Dave performed for L.P and her husband P.P., though it was never appreciated. In any event, he did not receive anything EVEN CLOSE to the amount the unbiased A.I. analysis said he should have been paid to get to the phase of construction he had reached. Even had the customers paid him the full contract price to get to that point, it would have still been shorting him. They did NOT pay him the full contract price, however, and wanted a substantial refund on what they did pay—which in NO WAY covered his costs.

The couple contacted Dave to build a custom home on their property. They provided only a conceptual exterior drawing and stated that a prior contractor had quoted $250,000 based solely on square footage. That contractor ultimately did not perform the work. Dave informed the customer that an estimate from a contractor unable (or unwilling) to do the project is not a reliable quote. Nevertheless, Dave agreed to construct the home for the stated price under specific conditions: the home would be built using Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF) and in accordance with his company’s List of Standard Home Features, which were provided with the contract. ICF construction was necessary to control labor costs, as it allows the project to be completed with a smaller crew. Without this approach, the offered price would not have covered labor in addition to the materials and equipment costs.

After the contract was executed, L.P. and her husband disclosed an interior floor plan that materially increased the project cost, yet they refused to pay for the resulting overages.

From July 2022 through May 2023, Dave personally traveled approximately 98 miles round trip, seven days a week, to the job site to honor the home construction agreement. This resulted in more than 30,000 miles on Dave’s truck, and fuel costs of approximately $70 per day—excluding additional material runs. Dave worked on site no fewer than six hours per day in all weather conditions, and regularly had at least one other worker with him, whose labor Dave was responsible for compensating regardless of L.P. and her husband’s willingness to pay.

Despite significant inflation-related increases in material and fuel costs, Dave did not seek additional compensation for the home as originally priced in the contract. The couple subsequently made multiple upgraded selections—including windows, cabinetry, and design changes—without accepting responsibility for the resulting cost overruns. Their focus remained solely on the materials they wanted included, with no consideration for the price of their upgraded choices, let alone the labor, equipment, and fuel that went into constructing their home.

Between December 2022 and May 2023, seasonal road postings delayed material deliveries through no fault of Dave or his company. To avoid work stoppages for lack of available materials, Dave ordered and paid for an additional $13,000 worth of ICF block to ensure delivery before the roads were posted. He was never reimbursed or credited for this expense.

Prior to being barred from completing the project, Dave’s company completed the following work:

• Site clearing, excavation, and foundation work, including removal of a hill to accommodate solar exposure. This was a $30,000 change that the couple agreed was necessary, but refused to pay for. The hill removal added approximately one month to the project ‘s schedule and increased labor, equipment, and fuel costs.

• Construction and pouring of footings and installation of drainage stone.

• Assembly, bracing, and concrete pouring of ICF foundation and exterior walls.

• Installation of an upgraded support beam and additional ICF block to accommodate an open floor plan not disclosed at contract formation. The couple refused to pay for this upgrade, which consumed the entire draw for that phase.

• Installation of the decking system, trusses, and partial roof sheathing.

Throughout the project, Dave’s excavator and track loader remained on site for approximately nine months. The fair rental value of this equipment, excluding operator and fuel, is approximately $81,000. Because Dave was not adequately compensated, he was forced to sell this equipment at roughly half its value. Of the sale proceeds, $40,000 was reinvested into the L.P. and her husband’s home construction project to continue honoring the contract.

In addition, Dave rented a lift at a cost of $2,000 per month for nearly a year, totaling more than $24,000, none of which was paid for by the customer. He also paid for $20,000 in additional concrete, $6,000 in wall bracing (which the customer retained), and incurred substantial additional truss costs due to the couple’s demand for an open-concept design and flat roof. The trusses alone cost $17,000—approximately $10,000 more than typical for a home of this size—and exceeded the draw for that phase. Dave also rented a LULL for one week at a cost of $1,900 to set the trusses.

By this stage, Dave had sold his equipment and taken out high-interest MCA business loans to keep the project moving. Over approximately 45 weeks, Dave personally provided more than 1,800 hours of labor, valued at $72,000 at a rate of $40 per hour—less than what he pays his subcontractors. This included ongoing snow removal necessary to protect and continue construction during the winter months. Dave received NO compensation for this labor. Notably, the couple’s claim accounts only for materials and excludes labor, equipment, and equipment fuel, and travel costs, which were substantial.

No payments were received from the couple or their bank after December 2022. On September 19, 2023, Dave received a FedEx letter dated September 18, 2023, stating that he was prohibited from accessing the property, meaning by the time he received the letter, the deadline to remove his tools and materials stated in the letter had already passed and he could not retrieve them under threat of arrest for trespassing. Dave discontinued work only after receiving this termination notice from L.P. and her husband’s attorney. He did not abandon the project at all, so he was not the one in breach.

After all of this, L.P. and her husband claimed that Dave’s company owed them $75,000 for unprovided labor and material, which is entirely unsupported by the facts. The amounts they paid did not cover the actual costs incurred for labor, equipment, fuel, and customer-driven material overruns. Neither Dave nor his company realize any financial gain from this project; instead, it placed his business under severe financial strain.

The allegation that Dave’s company breached the contract is false. To the contrary, he took extraordinary measures to perform the work, including selling equipment and borrowing funds, and continued working through the winter without payment. Any assertion that Dave failed to perform is contradicted by the extent of completed work and the circumstances under which he was barred from the site.

Finally, L.P. engaged in repeated harassment of Dave, including verbal abuse in front of witnesses and physically blocking his vehicle on multiple occasions when she spotted him out in public. Her conduct made it difficult and, at times, unsafe to work on the project, particularly during high-risk tasks such as truss installation, which ultimately required Dave to send subcontractors in his place as the level of harassment was through the roof. No pun intended.

---

To the contractor(s) who posted criticism of Dave on the Facebook Bethlehem, NH, USA Local Chat page: after reviewing what he endured and the sacrifices he made for this project, it is also important to consider the scope and budget he was given. Dave was asked to build a high-end custom home for $250,000—well below market cost. The homeowners allowed him to complete the most complex and expensive phases of the ICF construction before removing him from the project. They subsequently used the remaining contract balance to hire others to finish the work. They later filed a complaint with the BBB, citing higher-than-expected completion costs, and wanted a substantial refund for work Dave had already done and the materials he had already provided.

As noted in item four below, removing a contractor mid-project often leads to increased costs—particularly in this instance in which the original contractor was already building well below cost. The plans alone make clear that this home could not reasonably be completed from foundation to finish for $250,000, yet Dave agreed to do so as he has always been a people-pleaser (which is his only fault in the instances of these complaints). Under these circumstances, Dave’s response warrants fair consideration before you go attacking him without all of the facts.

Dave submitted a response to the Better Business Bureau regarding a complaint filed by M.B. He later received notice stating his response was reviewed and accepted, and the case closed. What follows recounts the truthful sequence of events regarding Dave and this individual.

M.B. (a.k.a. P.B.) engaged Dave’s services for remodeling work on her rental property in May 2022. She was referred to Dave through a word-of-mouth recommendation. His agreement with M.B. encompassed FIVE SEPARATE CONTRACTS involving TWO of her properties. As the owner of Dave Reilly Construction, LLC, he affirms he completed work valued at approximately $83,000 of the total $92,500 in contracted projects requested by M.B.

M.B. had paid $87,233 of the $92,500 she agreed to compensate Dave in exchange for the phases of work he had contracted to do on her two properties. Of the amount she paid—given the volume and value of labor and materials that were indeed already provided by Dave’s company—M.B.’s credit stood at $4,233. Therefore, her BBB claim that Dave owed her a refund of between $55,000 and $60,000 for undelivered materials and labor was grossly inflated and borders on defamation as stated in her complaint. In fact, upon finalization of the little remaining minor tasks Dave's company had left to do, M.B. would have owed him the final contract balance of $5,000 (the $4,233 credit did not cover the full contract balance that would be owed upon completion). She did not allow this to happen.

It's important to note that $2,209 paid by M.B. on June 27, 2022, as well as an additional $1,087 from a $6,000 check dated September 25, 2022, was spent on an electrician. These payments for electrical work were NOT included in the contract prices. These amounts, totaling $3,296, were directly used to compensate the electrician for work NOT covered in the contracts but performed on M.B.’s behalf.

Dave acknowledges that communication was not always ideal. During a three month period, he was working seven days per week in a location without cellular service. During that time, responsibility for day to day coordination was delegated to a subcontractor who ultimately did not perform as expected. At NO point, however, did Dave Reilly refuse to complete the contracted work—including after the BBB complaint by M.B. was filed.

Dave attempted to explain these circumstances to M.B. during her visit to his residence, but his explanations were not accepted. Again, Dave never indicated an intention not to complete M.B.’s work, and was committed to fulfilling all five agreements with her.

---

That said, the following is Dave’s reply regarding each of the five phases of contract work that M.B. had solicited him and his company to do:

---

Phase I: WORK on HOUSE

a) The total price for the PHASE ONE Contract on the rental home came to $30,000. The scope for this phase encompassed five areas of work. One of these five areas included the replacement of nearly all windows (with upgraded window selections).

b) The windows were ordered for M.B.’s rental home after receiving a deposit of $15,000.

c) The windows were special-ordered and were ready for pickup from the retailer around mid-summer (July to August 2022). M.B. had a tenant living in the house at the time, so she told Dave he would have to wait to do any work on the house until the tenant agreed to a convenient time for the work to be done. In mid-September of 2022, M.B. gave Dave a three-day window to work on the home while the tenant was away, but this was not enough time to complete the installation. When the tenant returned, she made scheduling the work very difficult. The tenant would send Dave’s subcontractors away, telling them when they could and could not work. Even when subcontractors were turned away, Dave was still billed and paid them for their time. This occurred on several occasions.

d) The windows were installed, except for five that Dave stored in the basement of M.B.’s house since they were not the right size. These five windows were still in M.B.’s basement at the time of his response to the her BBB complaint, and could not be returned to the retailer. This was a $2,000 loss for Dave on this phase of work since he never regained possession of the windows, yet still needed to order and pay for the five replacements. Dave was ready and willing to do this as soon as he and/or his subcontractors were permitted to work on the project again.

e) M.B. decided the front door was fine; she asked Dave to provide and install a storm door instead, which was done.

f) Due to the difficult tenant situation, M.B. instructed Dave to stop work on the rental house after all of the windows that could be installed were installed. She instead asked Dave to focus his efforts on her cottage. Therefore, the remaining work for Phase One for the rental was put on hold by M.B. herself at this time.

g) M.B. asked Dave to save items from the cottage and store them in the rental home's basement. (Note that the cottage work is part of the Phase II Contract.) She contacted Dave in September of 2023 to tell him that her rental basement was full of garbage (including things she had instructed him to store there from the cottage) and was given a quote of $500 by another company to clean it out. Dave had a dumpster there the next day with two guys to clean out the rental basement at no charge to M.B. for labor or the dumpster as a courtesy. This was a $1,500 value when factoring in the cost of the labor, dumpster, and its removal from the property. She was there directing the guys regarding what was good and what was garbage because she valued vintage items and wanted to be sure nothing important to her was tossed out. Dave only mentioned this to the BBB to establish that he was in contact with M.B. after August of 2023, contrary to what she stated, and took care of her rubbish situation.

h) M.B. kept the five windows that did not fit in her rental basement. The rental home’s basement subsequently flooded and damaged the windows. This occurred after September of 2023—after the basement had been cleaned out.

i) After M.B. contacted Dave in mid-autumn of 2023 to tell him the basement had flooded, he sent two men over to install a sump pump in the previously rented home she now occupied. She paid them directly for their services. Again, this incident Dave only mentioned in his response to the BBB because it established a timeline of communication that is contrary to the one provided by M.B.

j) $27,000 (value) of Phase One contract work was completed. At the time of her BBB complaint, there was approximately $3,000 due in labor and materials to purchase and install the five remaining windows.

---

Phase II: WORK on COTTAGE

a) On June 8, 2022, Dave sent M.B. a contract to start work on her cottage home while waiting for the windows for the rental home to come in (for Phase One).

b) Some of the incomplete work regarding Phase Two is a result of M.B.’s design changes, such as doors and framing modifications. The sheetrock, tape, and paint were inexpensive areas to complete as Dave had already purchased the sheetrock.

c) Other work that M.B. stated in her complaint as not being done was actually done or was almost completed at the time of her BBB filing against Dave.

d) Electrical and plumbing are the responsibility of the owner to pay separately and not included in Dave’s contract with M.B. or in the total Phase Two contract price. In other words, any money that M.B. paid Dave that was designated for electrical or plumbing subcontractors was not included or credited toward payment for his work under the terms of the contract agreement. At the time of M.B.’s complaint, an electrician had indeed been utilized and paid.

e) $18,000 (value) of the Phase Two contract work was completed. Dave had approximately $2,000 in work still to do for this phase to be completed prior to M.B. stopping the work.

---

Phase III: WORK on COTTAGE

Phase Three involved roofing the cottage only. The contract price for roofing was $7,500 and the work was 100% completed and paid for.

---

Phase IV: WORK on COTTAGE

a) Leveling of the cottage necessary to apply siding was completed by one of Dave's subcontractors before work began on the siding.

b) The flooring was to be left original and painted over, but could not be painted until the sheetrocking, taping, and painting portions of the Phase Two Contract were completed.

c) Except for one window, all new replacement windows in the cottage had been installed.

d) The project changed designs several times by M.B. and the French doors, except one, were not needed. Dave was waiting for M.B.’s final design decision to purchase and install the one French door she seemed to still want.

e) The window that M.B. said was unnecessary in the kitchen was installed in a different location in her cottage.

f) $23,000 (value) of Phase Four work was completed. The amount left to finish Phase Four was less than $2,000 for Dave's company to purchase and install a French door and a single window.

---

Phase V: WORK on COTTAGE

a) The siding for the cottage that was lumped in with the roofing project on a spreadsheet that M.B. emailed to Dave was actually done under a separate siding contract for the sum of $10,000.

b) M.B. paid $5,000 down as a deposit to order materials and commence work. The siding work was within two days of completion when she filed her complaint; only one box of siding needed to be ordered to finish that work. Once the siding was finished, M.B. would have owed a balance of $2,500.

c) The faux stone was actually vinyl and once installed, M.B. would have owed $2,500 for that phase of work as well.

d) $7,500 (value) in siding work had been completed by Dave's company prior to the time M.B. filed her complaint with the BBB. There was only approximately two days of work to complete the siding, and a week or less to complete the faux stonework. At that time, a balance of $5,000 would be due from M.B. Dave told the BBB that this amount could be held by M.B. as the final payment on the total amount owed for the five contracts once the work on all five contracts was fully completed. M.B. stopped that from happening, however.

---

In conclusion, regarding Dave's business dealings with M.B.:

Dave’s company completed the majority of the work that M.B. contracted and paid him to do. As of 2/9/24 when Dave submitted his response to the BBB in answer to M.B.’s complaint against him, his company had been paid a total of $87,233 toward all of the work that was included in the combined five contracts. $83,000 of the work was done, giving her a credit of $4,233 toward work moving forward, but still owing Dave (in excess of) $5,000 once the little remaining work was completed. The electrical payments were not part of, or included in, any of the contract prices, thus not credited toward payment on the contracts.

Over the year and a half that Dave dealt with M.B. as a customer, he tried to be as accommodating as possible. On several occasions, she interrupted the workflow on both the house and cottage projects due to her having a conflict with her tenant, as well as other personal circumstances.

While the tenant was living in the house during the winter of 2022-2023, M.B. asked Dave to stop all work on her cottage until she moved from Massachusetts to New Hampshire because she planned to move into the house herself in August of 2023. In the spring of 2023, a realtor friend of M.B. told her she was losing income that she could get if the cottage were finished and rented. She subsequently called Dave and asked him to resume work on the cottage.

M.B. moved to New Hampshire nearly four months earlier than originally projected. Since she was going to move into the house that was previously occupied by her tenant, she had additional work she wanted to be done to make the yard dog-friendly. This work involved rebuilding and fencing in two porches. The work was not part of any of the contracts and Dave did it for her at cost as a courtesy. Dave had guys scheduled to work on her cottage, but between May to the end of July of 2023 they worked on the unplanned and unscheduled house projects instead. M.B. and Dave were in communication and she was satisfied with the progression of work at the time, even though it interrupted work on the cottage.

Between September to October of 2023, M.B. called Dave with emergency work involving the basement of her home. Dave made sure those issues were taken care of for her. He also sent someone over to weed-whack her overgrown backyard at no cost to her.

M.B. was cordial up until the time when she found out she was going to be terminated from her job. At this time, she spoke about putting the projects on hold since money was going to be an issue for her. This was sometime in late autumn of 2023.

As of the date when Dave filed his BBB response to her complaint, he had received $87,233 from M.B. toward payment for contract work, and fully planned on completing all work, but she would not allow it. Again, $83,000 of the total amount received from M.B. was earned as payment for labor and materials already provided.

Because Dave had been working in an area that had no cell phone reception and not trying to avoid communicating with M.B., he hired a subcontractor to get the balance of the work done, but personal issues prevented that subcontractor from completing it during November and December of 2023.

The high monetary value that M.B. placed on the remaining work has been greatly exaggerated. What was left to be done, in total, amounts to less than $7,000 in labor and material COST since some of the needed materials had already been purchased by Dave. The only materials left to purchase consisted of one French door, some siding, and six windows for the house (the cottage windows were all installed). Dave had not told M.B. that he was unwilling to finish the outstanding work. He only needed to set up a reasonable work schedule with her, but she instead decided to take an offensive position against him in an attempt to be refunded money she was not owed.

Because M.B. did not agree to have Dave’s company finish the small amount of work that remained, it is proof that her complaint amounted to nothing less than an attempt to use the agency to get money refunded that she was not entitled to, which constitutes theft of service. Perhaps she had a change of financial circumstances since contracting Dave’s company to do the work, but with most of the work already done on her properties, she is clearly not entitled to have the amount she stated in her claim refunded.

The BBB determined that Dave’s proposed resolution of M.B.’s complaint was reasonable; however, she declined to accept it. Instead, she engaged in a sustained campaign of harassment and defamation, targeting him across public online platforms and by stalking him in real life. Her twin sister, P.B., has also participated in harassing behavior.

Read the excerpt below from the "Social Media Response" section of this website to see how bad the situation with M.B. and her sister P.B. has become.

Regarding P.B.'s twin sister M.B., Dave considered putting a restraining order on her, but the Bethlehem police officer he spoke with about the matter advised him it would require a court process to accomplish. Coincidentally, the next day P.B.'s sister put a "No Trespass" order on Dave even though he is NOT -- nor EVER has been -- the one doing the stalking and harassing.

While Dave is not the one who caused material breaches of any contracts he has made, the customers mentioned on this site most certainly did, then accused him of breaching after throwing him off of their projects. Some, including those addressed on this page, then took to Social Media to smear him. Perhaps after wrongfully throwing Dave off of their projects they came upon the artilce cited below and decided that "a good offence is a great defense."

"Termination will, almost without exception, delay completion and increase the cost of the project. To say that a project on which the general contractor has been terminated is cursed may be melodramatic, but only a little bit. Following termination, the owner is in a difficult bargaining position with potential completion contractors, particularly in an active construction market. Unpaid subcontractors and suppliers must be wooed back to the job, or replaced. In either event, the owner may end up paying for work or materials twice. The process can take months. If the schedule can be regained, it comes at a premium."

"Wrongful termination exposes the owner to breach of contract damages, including the contractor’s lost profit on the entire contract. A defaulted contractor may also claim that the wrongful termination caused it to be de-listed from eligible bidding lists, suffer reduced bonding capacity limiting its ability to obtain work, or even put it out of business altogether. Where the contractor is able to prove these consequential damages, it can lead to a substantial award against the owner."

"While a contractor has many obligations under the contract for construction, not every breach justifies termination. In order for an act or omission to warrant termination, it must constitute a “material” breach. Whether a particular act or omission is “material” and warrants termination cannot be determined without a thorough factual analysis. For example, a mere subjective belief that the contractor cannot complete the work within the time remaining is not sufficient grounds for termination. To justify a termination for cause, the owner must be prepared to demonstrate, typically by schedule analysis, that the contractor’s lack of progress endangered timely completion. It must also be prepared to debunk the contractor’s claim that it could have caught up and finished on time if it had been allowed to continue. Most importantly, the owner must be able to prove that the delay is the responsibility of the contractor."