Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Oh no, he’d be *gasp* just like half my neighbors who get unpermitted work done.

Half your neighbors will not be covered by their homeowners insurance if there is any damage or liability claims to those parts of the house that are unpermitted. Maybe you should let them know.

Not accurate.

Source: am an instance lawyer.

There are rare cases where the insurer determines that the defect was caused by poor work that would have been prevented had the work been permitted. That will be denied. Or if you knowingly made a false representation to your insurer that the work was permitted, some claims MAY be denied. I get all my work permitted but have never been asked since I bought my house whether there’s been unpermitted work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.

The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona

Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.

So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.

I can’t imagine signing a contract with a GC whom I hadn’t googled so I could check out online info. Also, did they not even ask the GC for names of former clients they could talk to?

This was a $200,000 project they were committing to and it didn’t occur to them to check out the previous work and background of the GC. Unbelievable!

You know this doesn’t come up when you search Google, right? Not unless there happens to be a news article on the person. You have to go into Fairfax County’s DPOR portal and search for licensure. I only know this because I got burned before as a first time homeowner.

Anonymous wrote:


Oh no, he’d be *gasp* just like half my neighbors who get unpermitted work done.

Half your neighbors will not be covered by their homeowners insurance if there is any damage or liability claims to those parts of the house that are unpermitted. Maybe you should let them know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mr Nguyen not as innocent as he appears.

Exactly. The county brought up his two other projects that were not permitted - the garage conversion, which they let go since it was part of the massive 3 story addition. The second project that was unpermitted was the patio/porch in the back which they incorporated into the house.

Oh no, he’d be *gasp* just like half my neighbors who get unpermitted work done.

He did pull permits for this.

Yes - permits were pulled for this project. They were not followed, but they were pulled - eg garage vs no garage. Flipping floors 2 and 3.

It was the fact that he had an untrustworthy relationship with the county. Changed plans while building, didn’t permit other work, and permitted but never completed to final inspection other work that is still in place. And he wasn’t “new” to additions as he claimed.

Hope your unpermitted neighbors don’t try to build a large controversial project and then find themselves in a similar situation.

Yay zoning variance request denied. Tear it down!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mr Nguyen needs to improve his acting skills…artificial tears were missing when he revealed his good intentions were to take care of his family, his mommy and daddy. I think his mom and dad are taking care of him, not vice versa. Scam artists got put in his place.

A 3 story addition for two elderly people with multiple washing machines…because of course elderly parents need a staircase.

We all know this was 3 apartments. And (sadly) elderly parents don’t live forever, so the parents would stay for a bit then when they leave that 3-unit apartment building magically turns into its intended purpose when the homeowner sells to an investor.

Someone brought up at the meeting that something similar to this happened to another home in the neighborhood. They said it was bought by a company that turned it into a group home and now for reasons I forget, it sits empty.

Anonymous wrote: I think his mom and dad are taking care of him, not vice versa. Scam artists got put in his place.

Wasn’t there something weird with the home ownership flip flopping between this dude and his parents?

He clearly wanted to portray a woe is me sob story, but everyone saw through it

Anonymous wrote:Mr Nguyen needs to improve his acting skills…artificial tears were missing when he revealed his good intentions were to take care of his family, his mommy and daddy. I think his mom and dad are taking care of him, not vice versa. Scam artists got put in his place.

A 3 story addition for two elderly people with multiple washing machines…because of course elderly parents need a staircase.

We all know this was 3 apartments. And (sadly) elderly parents don’t live forever, so the parents would stay for a bit then when they leave that 3-unit apartment building magically turns into its intended purpose when the homeowner sells to an investor.

Asian culture on elder care =\= committing architectural violence on neighbors.

Straight to JAIL. Forget getting his variance denial reversed!

Mr Nguyen needs to improve his acting skills…artificial tears were missing when he revealed his good intentions were to take care of his family, his mommy and daddy. I think his mom and dad are taking care of him, not vice versa. Scam artists got put in his place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.

The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona

Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.

So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.

I can’t imagine signing a contract with a GC whom I hadn’t googled so I could check out online info. Also, did they not even ask the GC for names of former clients they could talk to?

This was a $200,000 project they were committing to and it didn’t occur to them to check out the previous work and background of the GC. Unbelievable!

Speculating, but I would bet he knew he wasn't licensed and went with him anyway. Either because of a cheap price, or nobody licensed (ethical) would take the project, or both. Soto's business address isn't in the immediate area so I'm curious how he even found him. Like this clearly wasn't some door to door solicitation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.

The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona

Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.

So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.

I can’t imagine signing a contract with a GC whom I hadn’t googled so I could check out online info. Also, did they not even ask the GC for names of former clients they could talk to?

This was a $200,000 project they were committing to and it didn’t occur to them to check out the previous work and background of the GC. Unbelievable!

Homeowner knew they were hiring a shady person; that wasn’t a mistake or a lack of knowledge. They wanted to cut corners and skirt the rules to build something that’s clearly a future apartment building for an impossibly cheap price.

They’ve done this multiple times, cheating with unpermitted work via shady vendors and GCing projects themselves the DIY way when they have no clue how to be a GC.

Unfortunately (for them) they got caught on this project, their most expensive one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.

The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona

Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.

So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.

I can’t imagine signing a contract with a GC whom I hadn’t googled so I could check out online info. Also, did they not even ask the GC for names of former clients they could talk to?

This was a $200,000 project they were committing to and it didn’t occur to them to check out the previous work and background of the GC. Unbelievable!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that’s super interesting about this hearing is that it turns out the homeowner actually did use a contractor who misrepresented himself as licensed but previously had his licensed taken away for telling people they had to put down owner as contractor and pull their own permits. That’s a huge mitigating factor for the homeowner.

The HO is shady. If he thought he was using a legit contractor, he should never signed the permitting paperwork with that he was contractor. He certified that he was the contractor in all the permitting paperwork. Not buying is naive persona

Not everyone has the same sophistication or experience as you. It takes most of us learning our lesson the hard way to start checking things like that.

So this is a great chance for the homeowner to learn the hard way— a complete rebuild. Then he will learn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mr Nguyen not as innocent as he appears.

Exactly. The county brought up his two other projects that were not permitted - the garage conversion, which they let go since it was part of the massive 3 story addition. The second project that was unpermitted was the patio/porch in the back which they incorporated into the house.

Oh no, he’d be *gasp* just like half my neighbors who get unpermitted work done.

He did pull permits for this.