Remodeler Sues Woman Over Negative Reviews, Helps Force Another Critic Out Of Her Own Home
from the meritless-thuggery-represent! dept
You can't satisfy every critic. Sometimes people just want to complain. But when complaints surface, the worst thing you can do is make legal threats in response. This automatically gives every complaint against the company, no matter how specious, a veneer of truth. And if the complaints are justified, the time and money being deployed to shut up critics would be better utilized fixing the problems.
But some companies never learn. Or if they do learn, it's only after they've been exposed to the glaring sunlight that is the Internet. Baybrook Remodelers of Connecticut, and its owner Ken Carney, are now in that position.
Baybrook Remodelers has been pursuing one such critic for the past two years. Kristen A., who runs a website dedicated to her legal entanglements with Baybrook Remodelers, has been dealing with the company's attempts to curb her criticism since late in 2010. As she details on her site, she first attracted the remodeler's negative attention when she posted negative reviews detailing the company's refusal to honor its contractual design work after she decided to use someone else for the actual construction.
The signs posted at "another person's house" belong to Kristen's mother, who hung two signs critical of Baybrook Remodelers on her upstairs deck after issues she had with the company. The first sign simply said she did not recommend Baybrook Remodelers. After the owner tried and failed to have her remove this sign (attempts that included approaching Kristen's supervisor and asking him to intercede on his behalf), she hung another one -- one that specifically called out the company for its tendency to file lawsuits against critics, as well as being named in several lawsuits brought by unhappy customers.
Baybrook Remodelers responded by sending this ridiculous letter purporting to be a genuine legal threat.
Not only is the letter riddled with grammatical errors (and covered with Kirsten's coffee), but the address of the unnamed attorney traces back to Mailboxes, Etc. Readers will also note that the letter is unsigned and features nothing more than the words "Attorney at law" where a signature (and the name of the attorney) would normally be found.
When this failed to result in the removal of the signs, the remodeler approached the city of Milford, which obligingly circumvented its own statutes in order to yank the house's zoning approval, citing supposed violations from 2003 and 2004. The city also apparently tried to give itself instant, perpetual access to the house (ostensibly to check for further code violations) for as long as she remained living there. The city basically told her it wouldn't issue zoning approval until her signs came down, using the alleged violations -- which fell outside the city code's own six-year statute of limitations -- as leverage. Kristen's mother moved out of her own house in 2011 rather than continue battling Baybrook Remodelers and the city of Milford.
Kristen, however, continues to be hassled by Baybrook Remodelers for her reviews. As was noted at the beginning of the post, the case has dragged on since March of 2011. It appears Baybrook was hoping this case would never make it to trial.
Ken Carney’s lawyer has requested and been granted 15 extensions of time. On one occasion, he went 7 consecutive months without doing what was necessary to keep his case alive, and on another occasion he went another 4 consecutive months without moving his case forward. His lawyer has had 5 chances to rewrite his lawsuit to try to fix whatever was wrong with it.Here's a look at the docket, which is filled with little else other than the plaintiff's extension requests. As Kristen notes, a trial is forthcoming, with jury selection beginning in March. This is what Baybrook's been avoiding. Obviously, it hoped its threats would be enough to quell the criticism. That has backfired and now the company is in the awkward position of having to explain itself to a jury. This isn't the only case Baybrook is dragging its heels on. Another Tort case filed by Baybrook Remodelers in 2010 is still ongoing, with numerous extensions having been filed here as well. A motion for summary judgement has been filed by the defendant who is obviously hoping to finally have this seemingly endless suit tossed.
Finally, the case has a trial date. This was pushed by my lawyer, not Ken Carney’s. Based on their actions so far, Ken Carney and his lawyer would have been happy to let this go another 2½ years.
Kristen's site contains even more details of Baybrook's shady behavior. She noticed that shortly after she posted her negative review detailing the 40+ lawsuits the company was involved in (Dec. 6, 2010), a flood of Baybrook's "admirers" took to these same sites to post glowing reviews of the company. Most of the reviews were posted Dec. 15-17, which either means the company was posting its own reviews or had just wrapped up a ton of contracts for deliriously happy customers. Some reviews even copy-pasted wording from positive reviews written years earlier. Other identically-worded reviews surfaced under different names in January of 2011. One was even posted on Baybrook's website using yet another name.
But the most damning indicator of the company's negative reputation is the 40 pages of complaints filed with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection. The complaints detail a variety of issues with Baybrook Remodelers, including its tendency to do shoddy work and leave cleanup and damage repairs to the client. Other complaints point out how reluctant the company is to engage with dissatisfied customers ("owner won't answer his phone").
Baybrook Remodelers (and Ken Carney) apparently feel the hole they've been digging isn't big enough. A legal threat was recently sent to Kristen's hosting company, Dreamhost. As she correctly points out, Section 230 of the CDA makes this a particularly futile act, something attorney Thomas Daly should have known. Of course, maybe Daly's focus on personal injury and landlord/tenant disputes hasn't yet exposed him to the limits of secondary liability.
Additionally, the letter contains no specifics about what Daly (and his client) believe is "defamatory." It just vaguely claims that the sites are and expects Dreamhost to roll over and shut Kristen's sites down. Considering it's been eight days since the takedown demand, it would appear Dreamhost isn't falling for Baybrook Remodeler's vague claims of defamation. (As Ken White at Popehat often states, vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery.)
Kristen has admirably stood up to a meritless thug, one that will soon have a chance to explain its tactics to a judge and jury. It will be hard-pressed to point out exactly where Kristen has crossed the defamatory line and will hopefully be made to answer for its endless court delays and nearly three years of harassment.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ken carney, legal threats, reviews
Companies: baybrook remodelers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are probably too busy gazing into the Duck pond on the green.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By looking at the initial page I wouldn't have known this business had issues. I'm beg to doubt the trustworthiness of online review sites.
Note "recommend" reviews. 9 that are filtered out. Note the 3 reviews by Kristen that were taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i sincerely hope that 'the City of Milford' is going to be on the receiving end of a law suit as well for the way they have treated these people. whoever the person there who is involved in some sort of what i can only assume is a back hander arrangement with Raybrook Remodelers ought to be crapping themselves at the moment and thinking how the hell tyhey can get out of what they have gotten themselves involved in. i hope it was worth it, cause i can hear the chinking of a till as money comes out and the slamming of a door as it shuts after they have left, job gone!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure it is all just a misunderstanding...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wouldn't even be worth going after the city, going after one company is one thing. Going after the company AND the city could start to ruffle a bit too many feathers. With men named things like Tommy the Tree Man and Frank the Prank.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After seeing the photo of the letter and leaping to a conclusion, I was really disappointed not to read that she'd treated the letter with the respect it deserved and used it to wipe her ass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well... No-one said where the coffee came from, did they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wiping her ass would have been way funnier and epic but in a different way =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one point of clarification:
Kristen's mother moved out of her own house in 2011 rather than continue battling Baybrook Remodelers and the city of Milford.
My mother spends winters in Florida and summers here in CT. She did elect to remain in Florida rather than to try to live in her house due to the City of Milford's unchecked lunacy and abuse. She thought the city might try to force her out somehow, and wasn't going to subject herself to that kind of additional stress. She has never stopped fighting this, though.
Those signs are still up on her house. If I were a betting woman I would count on them remaining up for as long as the property is in the family. Ken Carney and Baybrook Remodelers are still suing her (although I sense they are anxious to settle rather than incur the cost of traveling to Florida to depose her!) The City of Milford is still suing her too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: baybrook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3712092713/baybrook-remodelers-inc-west-haven
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction of hosting company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baybrook has been receiving numerous threatening phone calls, all from the same person, demanding that Baybrook produce an elevation certificate for Mrs. Arisian. Most disturbing, Kristin has directed her rage at the employees of Baybrook and the family of the owner. Baybrook has no choice but to sue Kristen Arisian for her outrageous actions in order to make her stop. Since 1992, Baybrook has enjoyed an outstanding relationship with over 16,000 customers. Since 1992, we have had to go to small claims court 31 times to collect money. 31 non-payments out of 16,000 is a statistic that speaks to the quality of our work, and the relationship with our customers. Kristen Arisian has tried to spin this very positive information into something that is not true. Kristen Arisian would have you believe that we have been sued numerous times, and that is simply not true. Everyone at Baybrook Remodelers cares about our customers, and our quality of work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Baybrook on Jan 14th, 2014 @ 6:16am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. If you look at the July letter from Kuchta, the permit number referenced is the permit pulled by Baybrook Remodelers. It was on this basis that she was thrown out. There is an actual document that proves that your statement above is false. Another word for a provably false statement is lie.
3. I don't know anything about "threatening phone calls" telling you to get an elevation certificate. I suspect you're completely fabricating that. But on the very slim chance that you aren't, call the police. Or, hey, sue 'em!
3. Posting a negative online review of Baybrook Remodelers is not an "outrageous action" born from "rage". Nor is creating a website. This will help you understand that.
4. Why don't you elaborate or offer evidence of this purported rage directed at "the family of the owner"? You are just ridiculous sometimes.
5. This has always been one of my favorites: You claim that you have had over 16,000 customers since 1992. 1992 to 2014 is 22 years. 16,000/22 = 727 customers a year, or 2 customers a day. Over 22 years, you claim that Baybrook Remodelers has signed an average of 2 new contracts a day. That's assuming you sign these contracts 365 days/year. No weekends or holidays. 2 contracts a day. Uh huh. Sure you do.
6. As for whether my mother was happy with you...I will let her speak for herself on that in the trial, but there are actual written letters that she wrote to you where she makes it abundantly clear that she is unhappy. There are actually written letters where you write back and address her unhappiness. You're again making a statement that is provably false. I'd work on that before the trial if I were you.
7. I am not sure that the best business strategy is to say, hey we sue our customers more than they sue us. Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is absolutely amazing reading Baybrook's comments. It's entirely predictable that their comments don't address the the issues (such as that bogus 'legal' threat letter, or their lodging delay after delay), or offer any documentation in support of their view. So typical of these sort of things.
I like the way you dismantled their comments in a focused and humorous way, referencing the documents supporting your narrative. Quite a contrast to Baybrook's approach.
I just love the asymmetric warfare aspects of this. I'll follow this with a bowl of popcorn close at hand.
Best wishes to your Mom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kristen - need some SEO support?
If, for example, you owned a business and wanted to "rank" on "Business X Scam" or "Business X Negative Reviews" - it would be fairly easy and send a very clear message to, say, a bunch of thugs that seem intent on pursing a lost cause and making you and your family miserable in the process.
I occasionally do pro-bono work for worthy causes.
Hit me up, lets talk ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Web host
[ link to this | view in chronology ]