Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/23/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In early 2025, we hired *******, who falsely implied that he was a licensed landscape architect, to design and build a backyard with a patio, staircases, drainage, and gardens. He operated without valid business or New Castle County contractor licenses; after claiming to have a license, he secured an inadequate license for the work he had already done. His poorly built staircases, weighing over 15,000 pounds, exerted excessive pressure on our foundation, resulting in shifting, door misalignment, nail pops, and wall movement. Engineer Sinan S. Jawad, PE, confirmed code violations and settlement risks due to improper installation, and recommended removal. Despite our focus on drainage, *******’s system used ungraded pipes and misplaced gravel, leading to basement moisture intrusion. The patio, only 470 square feet instead of the contracted 610, had an incorrect shape. Cobblestone edging lacked support, pavers loosened, and flagstone shifted due to poor base preparation. Collateral damage included an obstructed patio door, damaged siding, and uneven grading, which will cost approximately $12,000 to repair. Work began in April 2025 after signing a contract on March 22. By late April, we discovered *******’s unlicensed status and in early May the stairways became visibly uneven and unstable. On May 12, we halted work, and by May 20, we filed a police report for potential fraud. The $96,000 contract saw us pay $57,600 (60%). Repairs to meet code are estimated at $60,000, totaling $117,600 for the project. With $38,400 unpaid, we face a $21,000 shortfall. We are open to compromise, crediting the boulder wall and some plantings, but cannot absorb the loss from *******’s negligence and deception. Originally, we spoke with his attorney who promised that he would work on an amicable resolution, based on our requests to refund the deposit, however in the end they dragged their feet for over three weeks and offered no reasonable resolution.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/10/2025

  July 10, 2025
  Via Online Submission:
  BBB of Delaware
  60 Reads Way
  New Castle, DE 19720
  
                          RE:     Complaint
  # 23489355
  
  To Whom it May Concern,
  
  My
  office represents Howrks, LLC (“Howrks”) regarding the above referenced Complaint.
  Mr. ******* “*****” **** alleges that he hired ******* ****** to perform hardscaping
  at his residential home at ** ******* ***** ********** ** 19707. For
  clarification, Mr. **** hired Howrks to perform such work. ******* ****** is
  the Owner and lead principal at Howrks. Mr. **** further alleges that Mr.
  ****** falsely implied that he is a licensed landscape architect, that Howrks
  operated without the applicable business license, and that Howrks performed defective
  work. Howrks denies these allegations. Overall, Howrks denies any and all
  claims as stated within the Complaint. Nonetheless, to resolve the Complaint, Howrks
  offers to take remedial measures outlined below.   
  
  On or
  about March 23, 2025, ***** **** reached an agreement with my client for
  Hardscape work including but not limited to Slab Steps, a Walkway, two Patios,
  a Boulder Wall, eight Trees, Four Hundred Perennials, Mulch and Posts in the
  rear yard of the property (the “Project”). The Agreement is attached as “Exhibit A”. 
  
  Howrks
  is a full-service landscape design and implementation studio specializing in
  high-end residential, schools and commercial spaces. At no point leading up to
  the signing of the Agreement was any implication made that Howrks or *******
  ****** was a licensed Landscape Architect or would be providing the services of
  a Landscape Architect. In fact, prior to the Agreement was signed, Howrks
  submitted a proposal for design of the rear yard patio area. The “Proposal” is
  attached as “Exhibit B”. According to pages 5 and 6 of the Proposal
  any costs associated with approval from an architect and/or civil engineer was
  not included in the Proposal (see Page 5 of Proposal). On the next page, the
  Proposal clearly states that “any drawing that requires a licensed engineer
  will be charged to client for the scope of the work needed.” (see Page 6 of
  Proposal). At no point was ***** **** charged for any sort of architectural or
  civil engineering work.
  
  In
  the Agreement, the only reference to a landscape architect comes under a
  heading entitled “Final Notes” which states that “our team, including the
  landscape architect and crew, is committed to the successful and professional
  completion of the project.” At no point did ******* implicate himself as a
  licensed landscape architect. This fact, combined with the fact that ***** ****
  was never charged for any architectural engineering work, cannot be construed
  as ******* ****** implicating himself as a landscape architect, or that Howrks promised
  to provide any sort of landscape architecture services.
  
  As
  far as the claim that Howrks operated without a valid business or New Castle
  County Contractor license, this claim is denied. Howrks obtained an Active
  Business license from the Department of Finance on February 13, 2024 (attached
  as “Exhibit C”). Unbeknownst to Howrks, this license was
  only valid until December 31, 2024 and not December 31, 2025. Upon realizing
  that the license had lapsed, Howrks immediately obtained a temporary license (attached
  as “Exhibit D”) which is still currently active. Howrks’
  Delaware State Contractors registration was active during the Project. As for
  the New Castle County Contractor license, the claim that Howrks was operating
  without a license is simply not true. Howrks is in possession of their 2025 New
  Castle County Contractors license along with a New Castle County permit
  endorsed licensed for 2025.
  
  The
  Project commenced on or about April 17, 2025 and continued until May 12, 2025
  when ***** **** forced my client off the Property and has since forbidden them
  from returning. At that point, the Project had been completed and Howrks was
  simply doing repairs and remediation as it was required to do so per the
  Agreement.
  
  Approximately
  one week after Mr. **** removed my client from the site, my client requested
  that he allow a Structural Engineer to come to the site and inspect the alleged
  issues, and Mr. **** refused this request and sought the opinion of their own
  engineer. To date, Howrks still remains willing and able to come to some sort
  of resolution. In order to reach a resolution, Howrks proposed that (1) the
  parties agree to the hiring of a 3rd party Structural Engineer to
  review the plans/designs and to investigate the house in order to determine the
  cause of the issues Mr. **** claims, what is necessary to fix these issues,
  and, based on the scope of the remaining remediation, what the cost of the
  remediation would be based on multiple bids from other contractors. Howrks is
  willing to cover the full cost of hiring another engineer to obtain this second
  opinion. To ease this process, I provided Mr. **** with 3 options of firms that
  Howrks is willing to use for the second opinion. Howrks requested that
  this inspection be done within the next 3 weeks. (2) After the inspection is
  performed, the parties will amicably meet and confer to discuss the respective
  reports and to find a resolution based on the results of the reports and costs
  of repair.
  
  The
  proposal in the above paragraph was sent to Mr. **** on June 27, 2025. To date,
  neither my office nor Howrks has received a response from Mr. ****.
  
  Overall,
  Howrks would like to fix this issue. To do so however, Howrks needs to know
  what needs to be fixed and the cause of the issues Mr. **** is experiencing in
  order to find the proper remedy to resolve this situation.
  
  Very
  truly yours,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/14/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my complaint and have determined that this does not resolve my  issue.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  We are writing to respond to the letter from Howrks, LLC’s attorney, ******* ** *****, Esq., regarding our Better Business Bureau complaint. We reject their assertions based on evidence, including video documentation (https://********************), an independent engineer’s report by ***** ** *****, PE (May 2025), and communications with county and state authorities. We address only those points in their response where we have specific facts to counter their claims, as outlined below. We reserve all rights.1.  Howrks’ Claim of No Misrepresentation as a Licensed Landscape Architect: Howrks denies that ******* ****** implied he was a licensed landscape architect, citing the proposal (Exhibit B) and Agreement (Exhibit A), which note costs for architect or engineer services were excluded and that no such services were charged. Our Response: From initial contact through the project, Mr. ****** represented himself as a landscape architect, a protected title in Delaware. The Agreement’s “Final Notes” references a “landscape architect” on Howrks’ team, leading us to believe a licensed professional was involved. No such professional participated. Neighbors confirmed Mr. ****** introduced himself similarly to them. We contracted for $96,175 based on this misrepresentation.2.  Howrks’ Claim of Valid Licensing: Howrks denies operating without a valid business or New Castle County Contractor license, stating they held a business license until December 31, 2024, obtained a temporary license thereafter, and possessed a 2025 New Castle County Contractor license and permit. Our Response: County and state officials confirmed on May 13, 2025, that Howrks was unlicensed during the project (April 17–May 12, 2025), as their business license expired December 31, 2024, and the temporary license was issued only after we raised concerns on May 12. Their subsequent licenses do not authorize permitted work, which this project required. Mr. ****** falsely claimed on May 12 that he was licensed, citing prior work. Their unlicensed status also invalidated their insurance, per their insurer on May 14, 2025.3.  Howrks’ Claim of Project Completion: Howrks asserts the project was completed by May 12, 2025, and they were performing repairs when we forced them off the property. Our Response: The project was incomplete and defective. The stairs were unstable, built on uncompacted backfill without a footer, as confirmed by Mr. *****’s report. Lights were not installed, the patio was undersized (470 sq ft vs. 610 sq ft), and poor drainage caused flooding in our kitchen and basement, as shown in the video. On May 12, Mr. ****** demanded additional payment to continue, despite these issues, and ceased work when we refused.4.  Howrks’ Claim of Willingness to Resolve: Howrks states they offered a structural engineer inspection on June 27, 2025, to assess issues and find a resolution, but we did not respond. Our Response: Mr. ****** acknowledged on May 12, 2025, that the stairs needed redoing and lights were missing but demanded extra payment without a specific plan. His six-week delay until June 27 worsened damages, including flooding. We obtained an independent report from Mr. ***** in May 2025, confirming defects. Howrks’ proposed engineers include one with a prior relationship with Mr. ******, raising bias concerns. Given their unlicensed status and delays, we had no confidence in their ability to resolve issues.We estimate damages at $80,500, including $60,500 for staircase and patio repairs, $4,000 for drainage fixes, $12,000 for collateral damages, and $4,000 for additional costs. To achieve the contracted outcome (a completed patio for $96,175), we demand $42,030. We are open to BBB mediation but reserve all rights, including potential fraud claims.Sincerely,***** **** *** ***** *****l
  
  
  
  
  Regards,
  Complaint ID: 23489355
   
  
  
   
   

  

  Business Response

  Date: 08/01/2025

  Howrks' previous response addresses to the extent Howrks is willing to respond at this time. Howrks acted within its Contract with Mr. **** and will continue to pursue an amicable solution with Mr. **** and will determine the need for any sort of mediation at a later date.