Unmasking the Realities of Contractor Endorsements
12/30/2023
Rachael Kaiser's (CA DRE# 01884530) recent response to our review felt dismissive, giving the impression of indifference to our concerns. This apparent lack of empathy was unexpected and professionally disconcerting, leaving us with a sense of being disregarded. It's perplexing when she suggests that we've omitted important facts, yet never reached out to us for clarification or discussion. There's a noticeable contradiction in her claiming to be informed while also distancing herself from the dispute. Although we didn't officially engage her for listing our property, she knew of our plans to do so post-renovation, making her recommendation of Megan Kaiser for the project more significant. This context is important, as it indicates a deeper level of involvement in our decision to choose her sister's services.
Megan Kaiser's 'OUTSTANDING' work was, in reality, a narrative of incompetence and dishonesty. She initially promised an 8-week completion timeline, yet the project stretched beyond 10 weeks with no end in sight. This wasn't just a delay but blatant neglect of professional duty. Despite assurances that our project would be her sole focus, Megan shifted her attention to another job in La Jolla within a week. Her team, primarily a single unlicensed painter assisted by his minimally-contributing dad and brother, juggled their time between our project and another, leaving us in constant uncertainty. Upon confronting Megan about the subpar work and lack of progress, she boldly requested an additional 4 weeks. Considering the extensive issues requiring correction and her plan to continue with the same problematic crew, this timeline would likely have more than doubled. We requested a different qualified crew, recalling her claim of having 'multiple crews' before we hired her, but she flatly rejected our request. We understand now that Megan always only had a single unlicensed painter at her disposal. Shortly after, we received a threatening mechanic's lien letter from her lawyer.
Megan Kaiser's unethical financial practices were particularly egregious, considering our lack of experience in home renovations. Unaware of California's legal limits on down payments, we were taken aback when Megan required a $51K deposit at the outset, significantly more than the state-mandated maximum of 10% or $1K. This was a clear violation of the law, a fact we only discovered after ending our association with Kaiser Construction. In the construction industry, payments are typically made for work completed, not upfront. This large deposit left us with limited options, effectively handcuffing us to her schedule and priorities. Megan's decision to demand such a substantial deposit, despite her claimed “10+ years” of extensive experience in the field, was not just unethical but exploitative, severely constraining our ability to respond to the subsequent delays and poor workmanship.
The budget issue is another point where Rachael's claims fall apart. Our initial contract with Megan Kaiser was for $205K, signifying a commitment to an extensive renovation. The plan included an ADU conversion, but the seven to eight-month duration for obtaining coastal and city permits meant we didn't have the permit in hand. It was then that Megan unethically suggested we proceed with the ADU project without the necessary permits. This wasn't merely a red flag; it was a stark demonstration of her disregard for legal and professional standards. To imply our renovation's failings were due to budget constraints is misleading and insulting. The real issues lay in Megan's poor craftsmanship and unethical business practices. Therefore, at the time we parted ways with Kaiser Construction, our permit was still pending and would be until early October.
In her response, Rachael Kaiser maintains her confidence in Megan Kaiser's abilities as a contractor. This ongoing endorsement, in light of the numerous issues we have experienced and shared, is surprising. It raises questions about the criteria Rachael uses for her professional endorsements. Her continued support for a contractor, whose work in our case was far below expectations, could potentially mislead other clients. This situation highlights the need for thorough vetting and due diligence, especially when relying on "professional" recommendations.
In response to the numerous issues caused by Kaiser Construction, we reported them to the California State Licensing Board (CSLB) and Kaiser Construction's bond company. The bond company's independent construction consultant's evaluation was damning. The report (view here) specifically noted Kaiser Construction's failure to "perform an acceptable standard of workmanship" and their neglect in obtaining "the necessary permit for the primary bath." Key recommendations included the re-completion of both exterior and interior painting, and addressing permit issues in the master bathroom, with total re-completion costs exceeding $60,000. This significant financial burden arose directly from Kaiser Construction's unprofessional conduct.
In conclusion, Rachael Kaiser's response to our situation, characterized by a notable lack of empathy, has been a letdown and has eroded our trust. Her approach in addressing our concerns, coupled with contradictory statements, has only compounded our disappointment. It's apparent that her grasp of the "facts" is severely limited and profoundly misrepresented. This entire ordeal has opened our eyes to the concerning practices of some individuals in the real estate industry, underscoring the importance of empathy and integrity in professional conduct.