A contractor who did personal work for a Bermuda Housing Corporation officer says his company was kicked off its BHC contracts after he tried to bill for the work done at the man's property.

Kevin Pilgrim's small business - SOHO Applications - was working on two BHC contracts while also carrying out work at the Tee Street home of Terrance Smith, a property officer at BHC.

The young businessman had been invited to bid all three jobs by Mr. Smith personally, when a mutual acquaintance in the industry introduced them.

“He said ‘bid on a couple of jobs and I'll do what I can to help',” Mr. Pilgrim said. “I did and I got them. These were honest bids, I was just looking to have my guys working.”

SOHO completed one BHC job on North Shore Road and was working on another at Friswell's Hill while also working on Mr. Smith's home, where extensive renovations are still taking place.

“I had three technicians down there (at Tee Street) working 40 hours per week from January to mid April (2001),” Mr. Pilgrim told The Royal Gazette.

The contract drawn up for the Tee Street job called for a 50 percent deposit, which Mr. Pilgrim received, a 30 percent payment upon completion of the bulk of the work and 20 percent at completion.

But after he submitted a bill for roughly $16,000 in April last year, Mr. Pilgrim's workers were unceremoniously thrown off the job.

Mr. Smith even cursed at his wife Alison when she called to find out what was happening, Mr. Pilgrim said.

And just days later, Mr. Pilgrim and his workers were told a message had come down from Mr. Smith and BHC general manager Raymonde Dill that they were no longer welcome on the BHC job either.

It was a cold development for the company. “We went from having too much work to having no jobs overnight,” Mr. Pilgrim said. As a result, he had to lay off a number of workers and it has taken nearly a year for his small company to recover.

“He told me ‘stick with me and I'll take care of you',” Mr. Pilgrim said of the initial relationship with Mr. Smith.

“We know what that means now: You work on my house for free and I'll get you Housing Corporation jobs.”

Submitting a bill ended both the relationship with BHC and that with Mr. Smith.

But the Pilgrims are more concerned about the principle of the matter than the money they lost.

“We were raised right. We submitted honest bids, “ said Mrs. Pilgrim. “We didn't realise we were working for free.”

SOHO Applications never received any written explanation for the dismissal and while Mr. Pilgrim repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Smith, his calls went unanswered.

A third BHC job which was in the pipeline for the company evaporated and the Pilgrims met with Mr. Dill a few days later and asked him, point blank, what was going on.

“He told us he hadn't ordered us off any job but only told the overall contractor, ‘keep an eye on them'. What does that mean?” asked Mr. Pilgrim.

Mr. Dill admitted he was aware of the situation, according to Mr. Pilgrim.

“He said he'd told Terrance Smith it was a personal situation and not to bring Bermuda Housing Corporation into it because as far as BHC is concerned (SOHO workers) were doing good work.

“He also said he told Terrance not to mix business with pleasure. And he tried to call Terrance while we were there but there was no answer.

“He promised me he would contact me by Monday. I never heard from him again.

“You cannot tell me that Raymonde Dill does not know what is going on (at BHC) or at Tee Street.

“There is no way that he doesn't know.”

Between the remainder of the contract to be paid and the extras incurred at Tee Street, Mr. Pilgrim figures Mr. Smith owes SOHO $32,000.

He took Mr. Smith to small claims court last October in the hopes of regaining something.

The Magistrate who heard the case suggested the Pilgrims take the case to Supreme Court, however, where higher awards are possible and the couple are preparing to do so.

Mr. Smith is counter-suing claiming that SOHO's work at Tee Street was not up to par, Mr. Pilgrim added.

But the company kept detailed records of the work that was done on the home - including time sheets for workers on the job, all invoices for supplies, contracts, digital photographs of the work as it proceeding and the Planning records as the work passed inspections.

The work did fail one inspection, Mr. Pilgrim points out, because it was not complete but it passed the following day.

While SOHO bid on the job based on one set of plans, Mr. Smith later handed the foreman working on the job a second set of plans to work from, Mr. Pilgrim said.

Not a day went by without changing being made, he said.

“He was chopping and changing all the time, running up all kinds of extras. He told me to keep track of them and submit a bill.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Pilgrim estimates he did not include at least a couple of thousand dollars in extras when he billed because he was happy to be getting a lot of work.

“It's is a great programme,” he said of BHC's overall operation. “I am not knocking it. I just think they have to watch who they are dealing with. What he's doing is just wrong. He's trying to use his influence at Housing and people are afraid of him. It's work. People need the work and they're scared. But I am not afraid of him. I want to build this business but I want to do it the right way.”

Mrs. Pilgrim added: “Otherwise, it's selling your soul and these people would always own you.”

When contacted yesterday for comment at BHC, Mr. Smith said he had no comment on the matter because there was a court case going on and it wasn't important.

He added: “If you people put my house or my name in the paper, I'm going to deal with you.”

Mr. Smith said there was “nothing fishy” about the Tee Street property and if The Royal Gazette had any questions “go to Gibbons Company and see my mortgage”.

According to Government Registry of Mortgages, Mr. Smith holds two mortgages on the Tee Street property.

In August 2000, when he bought the property, he took out a mortgage of $595,000.

The Royal Gazette understands Mr. Smith purchased the house for just under $1 million that year.

On February 8 of this year, an additional mortgage of $245,000 was taken out on the property.