Defunct Cleveland door company sued by state of Ohio over alleged scam – WKYC.com
The three operators of CLE Door LLC allegedly took almost $200,000 in down funds with out rendering any providers.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Lawyer Widespstudy Dave Yost has sued the house owners of a now-defunct storage door agency in Cleveland that Yost says accepted…….
The three operators of CLE Door LLC allegedly took almost $200,000 in down funds with out rendering any providers.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Lawyer Widespstudy Dave Yost has sued the house owners of a now-defunct storage door agency in Cleveland that Yost says accepted almost $182,000 in funds with out ending any work, his office introduced right now.
Matthew Petroff of Kent, Joshua Robertson of Parma and Thomas DiNardi of Lakewood, operators of CLE Door LLC, have been taken to Cuyahoga County Widespstudy Please Courtroom by the state of Ohio on the rivalry that the companions violated the Ohio Shopper Gross sales Practices Act and Ohio Home Solicitation Gross sales Act.
Inside the legal guidelinesuit, The lads are accused of taking buyers’ down funds with out offering doorways or Ancompletely different service. They’re additionally accused of failing To inform buyers of their “proper of recission,” which means They Did not inform buyers that That they had three days to again out of their contacts.
“That might not how we do enterprise in Ohio,” Yost said. “This legal guidelinesuit ought to Carry out a deterrent to completely different contractors who play quick and unfastened. We’ll come down on them extra sturdy than a storage door with a busted spring.”
In some circumstances, the legal guidelinesuit states, the defendants provided to problem refunds of a buyer’s deposit, then Did not take movement. Other occasions, The lads refused buyers’ requests for refunds.
The alleged violations beneath The client Gross sales Practices Act embrace one rely of “failure to ship” for accepting money and letting eight weeks to elapse with out ending the work or making a full refund, and a second rely of “misrepresentation” by deceptive buyers on the standing of their refunds. </…….
