Attorney General Seeking $500,000 From Old Saybrook Home Builder

Hello. Please close this forum immediately. Mayor Perez does not feel it suits his needs. Thank you.

Shut it down wrote:

Hello. Please close this forum immediately. Mayor Perez does not feel it suits his needs. Thank you.

Free speech baby.... Sweat it out wallingford. I am sure Mayor Perez is not affected.

henry wrote:

<quoted text>
Free speech baby.... Sweat it out wallingford. I am sure Mayor Perez is not affected.

Mayor Eddie will stomp his feet and hold another protest in a phone booth if any mean posts appear. This is your last warning.

Shut it down wrote:

Hello. Please close this forum immediately. Mayor Perez does not feel it suits his needs. Thank you.

Are you going to post this ridiculous, and completely irrelevant statement to every story that allows comments? You need to find something better to do with your time.

Did the homes have CO's issued? If so, based upon the unsafe conditions outlined in this article, why isn't the Building Official being held responsible for issuing the CO's?????

The Building Official must be held responsible for their inactions. The AG's office must start going after the Building Officials that refuse to do their jobs.

Unfortunately, acts like this are not isolated and building officials that choose not to do their jobs must be held accountable for their inactions.

The mantra of ineffective and irresponsible building officials is typically, "I'm busy" or "We're short staffed." This is unacceptable excuse.

Notice I did not say all building officials. I am referring only to building officials that do not do their jobs of ensuring the public's safety by enforcing Connecticut Code.

CollinsHell,

Consider some of the choice words in the AG's statement, particularly "uninhabitable and unsafe".....

With that said **UNINHABITABLE**, I'd hope that one or more building inspectors DID NOT issue CO's.....

Then again,'04-'06 coincides with Chester the Molester and Dick 'double-bill' Layton......

Go figure.... The housing boom has more than economic/financial victims... But why did it take 2-4 years for the hammer to fall on this builder?

Modman wrote:

CollinsHell,
Consider some of the choice words in the AG's statement, particularly "uninhabitable and unsafe".....
With that said **UNINHABITABLE**, I'd hope that one or more building inspectors DID NOT issue CO's.....
Then again,'04-'06 coincides with Chester the Molester and Dick 'double-bill' Layton......
Go figure.... The housing boom has more than economic/financial victims... But why did it take 2-4 years for the hammer to fall on this builder?

By Chester the Molester, you don't mean that redneck from bushnell lane in clinton, do you?

Why did Blumenthal ignore the other criminal contractor, Jon Seigel of Durham? He too put up substandard modular homes in the area, he takes your money but because he is insolvent, he then can't build your house.
He is being sued by several people but Blumenthal should be handling this guy, too.

Modman wrote:

CollinsHell,
Consider some of the choice words in the AG's statement, particularly "uninhabitable and unsafe".....
With that said **UNINHABITABLE**, I'd hope that one or more building inspectors DID NOT issue CO's.....
Then again,'04-'06 coincides with Chester the Molester and Dick 'double-bill' Layton......
Go figure.... The housing boom has more than economic/financial victims... But why did it take 2-4 years for the hammer to fall on this builder?

Modman - if people were living in the houses, CO's had to be issued.

Why have building officials if they are not enforcing code?

Think about it - anyone can get a license to build houses. Why do we have building officials? To ensure the public's safetly by enforcing Connecticut Building Code.

How many times in the last year have there been stories about contractors getting sued because of their shoddy work, code violations, and safety issues?

While the Building Official isn't there to inspect workmanship, they are there to inspect the homes to ensure CT building codes are followed and adhered to.

Start making BO's accountable by pressing charges against them or fining the towns - then the BO's that aren't doing their jobs will start pushing back on the fly by night contractors like Bowden.

There are some great BO's in the state and they should be commended. The ones that aren't doing their jobs and putting the safety of the public at risk must be held accountable.

Where were the town building inspectors through all this? Didn't they see the condition of these homes and refuse to provide Certificates of Occupancy? If that happened the builder wouldn't have gotten his money from the bank. Where was the bank's inspector? Did the homeowners hire their own inspectors. They should have.

The most troubling is the lack of town building inspector oversight.

Blumenthal ought to look into that.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Where were the town building inspectors through all this? Didn't they see the condition of these homes and refuse to provide Certificates of Occupancy? If that happened the builder wouldn't have gotten his money from the bank. Where was the bank's inspector? Did the homeowners hire their own inspectors. They should have.
The most troubling is the lack of town building inspector oversight.
Blumenthal ought to look into that.

If it's new construction, the mortgage company has their inspector come out to confirm a building exists - that's pretty much the extent of their duties.

The bottom line is a CO should not be issued until the home meets code. End of story - that's it. You can have a million independent inspections, but if the home doesn't meet code, there should be a CO.

The AGs office should be all over this. It's not isolated and the economical fallout is millions of dollars paid by homeowners, money paid out by the state to cover DPC complaints, etc...

Local Building Officials should be slapping unethical contractors with fines and stop work orders. Building Officials need to be doing their jobs at the beginning, not at the end of the construction.

An inspector is responsible for the following. Insure the foundation is correct, insure the framing is correct, insure the electrical is correct and insure the plumbing is correct. Whether they are responsible to see if the frame is bolted down, these houses are pre-fab, A regular home has a sill plate that is bolted to the foundation and is in plain view. I'm not sure the inspectors can be liable but there should be a call for changing inspections on modular homes!

CollinsHell,

I agree with you 100%....

BUT I don't see anything in this article that even alludes to whether or not these houses were occupied. There are references to "homeowners" but that don't mean a thing.

Modman wrote:

CollinsHell,
I agree with you 100%....
BUT I don't see anything in this article that even alludes to whether or not these houses were occupied. There are references to "homeowners" but that don't mean a thing.

I thought this story was going to be about another contractor, but as I delved further, it looks like yet another example of a Building Official not adhering to CT code:

Here is information from previous Courant article that implies people were living in the houses:

ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKES HOME CASE
CHARLES STANNARD. Hartford Courant. Hartford, Conn.: Jul 9, 2008. pg. B.5

Lloyd Bowden, a Haddam resident, operated the modular home business in Essex for several years before complaints from consumers began to surface, leading the Department of Consumer Protection to begin an investigation in June 2007. The Essex office is now closed.

The evidence presented at the hearing alleged that Bowden had systematically understated pass-through costs to obtain work, required high upfront payments and failed to deliver a safe, defect-free home.**The problems led to lengthy delays before homeowners could occupy dwellings for which they had already paid substantial amounts.**

Blumenthal said Tuesday lawyers in his office would "immediately begin legal action to recover restitution for victims who have suffered at the hands of this builder." He said the steps would include seeking "injunctive relief" through civil action in Superior Court in Hartford, along with possible prosecution for criminal violations.

Modman wrote:

CollinsHell,
I agree with you 100%....
BUT I don't see anything in this article that even alludes to whether or not these houses were occupied. There are references to "homeowners" but that don't mean a thing.

These homes were occupied by families... including small children and pregnant women. This man put these innocent people's lives in danger to save a few bucks. And we are not talking a whole lot of money here.$1500? Is your life worth $1500? While the inspectors should have caught this gross negligence, the responsibility lies in the person who committed the act. Building inspectors have a very short list when it comes to inspecting modulars, this list needs to be expanded. But ultimately, the choice to not bolt these homes, finish these homes and steal from these families was made by Bowden. All builders that do this activity should be held accountable, but the squeaky wheel gets the oil. One has to persist to get things done in this state. I just hope that all those affected by this guy get help through this suit.

How did anyone let it get this far if it was this bad? Do regulatory agencies regulate anymore. It would be nice to publish the list of when the home inspections were performed and by whom. It is called accountablitiy!

might've, should've bought a condo-where yardwork is free ninety-nine too.

Sum wrote:

might've, should've bought a condo-where yardwork is free ninety-nine too.

Hey Bob, you missed the c.

RESIDENCE AND TAX PAYER wrote:

WASN'T ONE OF THESE JUST BUILT ON BOKUM RD?

Residence, Resident, or Residiot?
So what's it to you?!?
I'm sure Evangelisti installed the proper hurricane straps, bolts, doodads and whatnots....