Disclaimer

This site is an independent, non‑commercial investigative resource compiled by the homeowner. All records linked here are public documents obtained from official government sources. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, no guarantee is made as to completeness or timeliness. Visitors should independently verify all information against the original source.

Table of Contents

Section A — Overview

This document provides a verified timeline and supporting evidence for the Handi Services project dispute. Facts are marked accordingly; opinions are clearly labeled.

In our direct dealings with Handi Services, we encountered significant misrepresentation, poor communication, and refusal to honor verbal and written commitments. Despite a $15,000 deposit and repeated assurances that materials would be ordered and work would commence within two weeks, no physical work was performed. Costs were inflated after agreements, and agreed services such as furniture moving were later denied or upcharged. Our attempts to resolve the dispute were met with defensiveness, contradictory statements, and offers of partial refunds far below the unearned amount. These experiences are echoed in public reviews, such as the Yelp review shown below.

Yelp review by Rachel K. regarding Handi Services
Yelp review posted by Rachel K. on August 10, 2025.

Section B — Timeline of Project Events

May 2025

May 5, 2025: Text from Ashley (Handi Services) via Angie's List lead form introduction.
May 5, 2025: Email from Angi: Handi Services sends initial message expressing interest in project and intent to call shortly.
May 5, 2025: Jon confirms address for upcoming appointment.
May 7, 2025: Initial in-person meeting with Jon and Adam from Handi Services.
May 13, 2025: Appointment rescheduled at Jon’s request.
May 19, 2025: Meeting at homeowner’s residence to review scope; Jon identifies “Bobby Thompson” as CEO; scope includes loft remodel, master bed/closet, laundry cabinetry, and other upgrades.
May 22, 2025: Discussion about higher-than-expected carpet cost; revised scope for $30,000 agreed; $15,000 deposit wired; contract signed; start promised within 2 weeks.
May 27–28, 2025: Scheduling discussions for carpet selection at ProSource.

June 2025

June 4–5, 2025: Meeting at ProSource; carpet selected ("Gregerson Premium: Canvas"); French door style discussed ("3-panel frosted" preferred).
June 5, 2025: Two weeks from contract signing passes with no project start; perceived as first missed commitment.
June 9–10, 2025: Jon confirms carpet selection submitted; discusses door choice and coordination with Rachel.
June 11, 2025: Jon forwards CEO's carpet upgrade pricing; offers to pick up samples; Rachel confirms availability June 11–13. Jon implies "Premium ($900)" upgrade cost based on CEO's direction. View ScreenshotJon's text showing Premium ($900) upgrade pricing
June 12, 2025: Jon schedules sample pickup; adds Morgan (project manager) to text thread; meeting planned for June 14.
June 14, 2025: Jon and Morgan arrive for site visit (~30 minutes).

July 2025

July 1, 2025: Rachel asks Morgan if the furniture moving fee was included. Morgan gives a vague answer referencing budget changes and higher carpet cost, without directly addressing the question. View ScreenshotScreenshot of July 1 text messages with Morgan
July 2, 2025: Dave sent a formal clarification letter to Handi Services requesting confirmation that furniture moving was included in the scope. View Letter
July 2, 2025: This request was prompted by Morgan's vague and non-committal answer to a direct question about furniture moving, suggesting an attempt to avoid committing to prior verbal assurances.
July 2, 2025: Jon verbally informed Dave over the phone that he was no longer working for Handi Services.
July 2, 2025: Following Bobby’s response to the clarification letter, Dave attempted to access the digitally signed contract, but found that the original signing links had expired. The HandiServices.us website contained no guidance on accessing documents, there was no indication of a client portal, and no instructions had been provided for such a portal. Dave texted Jon, left voicemails at the main company phone number, and sent email requesting the contract. View Email Request View ScreenshotText conversation with Jon regarding access to the signed contract
July 2, 2025: The lack of access process or portal information reflects poor client communication and record management practices.
July 10, 2025: Bobby sent an email titled “Project Review Complete – Clear Options and Solutions for Your Carpet Installation,” outlining his view of the project state and options to move forward. Notably, the carpet upgrade cost, originally presented by Jon as approximately $900, was now stated to be over $4,000 above the allowance. View Email
July 10, 2025: The email employed a confusing and manipulative tone, consistent with tactics described in Donald Trump’s Art of the Deal, framing inflated costs as goodwill concessions.
July 10, 2025: Homeowner informs Jon of project cancellation; requests contractor referrals; no further progress made.
July 11, 2025: Phone call with Robert “Bobby” Thomas Thompson regarding project status, communication issues, contract access, and disputed costs for carpet upgrade and furniture moving. Bobby reiterated that the carpet was not ordered due to cost overages, disputed prior communication issues, and refused to consider the project cancelled, stating a legal obligation to complete under contract. View Transcript
July 11, 2025: Bobby’s approach during the call was defensive and dismissive, repeatedly talking over concerns, challenging the homeowners’ statements, and framing contractual obligation as justification to continue work despite expressed intent to cancel.
July 11, 2025: Following the phone call, Bobby emailed a message titled “Moving Forward Together – Your Project Solutions” asserting that cancellation was not legally possible under Arizona law and offering three paths forward: a revised $30,000 contract, a change order approach, or scope adjustments. Dave and Rachel replied later that day, declining to proceed with the renovation and proposing a mutual termination with a partial refund of $8,000–$10,000. View Email Exchange
July 11, 2025: Bobby’s email emphasized legal obligations and inflated the value of preconstruction services to $18,000–$22,000+, a framing tactic that appeared intended to dissuade cancellation and justify continuation of the project.
July 11, 2025: Bobby's "Moving Forward Together – Your Project Solutions" email included a PDF copy of the approved signed contract, showing the original $30,000 scope and payment schedule. View Contract Copy
July 11, 2025: The contract does not include a cancellation clause, making Bobby's assertion that cancellation is "not legally possible under Arizona law" a questionable interpretation that favors the contractor.
July 11, 2025: Immediately after Bobby’s “Moving Forward Together – Your Project Solutions” email, Dave received an automated invitation to register for the Handi Services Buildertrend client portal. Upon accessing the portal, it contained no contract, no deposit information, no project data, no orders, no progress updates, and no assigned personnel. View Invitation
July 11, 2025: The portal appeared hastily created and unused, likely set up in response to prior complaints about access to project documents, rather than as part of a genuine, established workflow.
July 16, 2025: Initial complaint filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (ROC #2025‑07032) alleging abandonment, refusal to refund unearned funds, and failure to provide change orders, itemized accounting, or evidence of work performed after a $15,000 deposit. View Complaint Form
July 16, 2025: Initial ROC complaint filed (#2025‑07032) for misrepresentation, abandonment, and failure to perform.
July 21, 2025: ROC issued an allegation letter to Handi Services requesting a written response within 10 days to address the complaint. View Allegation Letter
July 22, 2025: 60 days had passed since the $15,000 deposit was paid, with no physical work started, no materials delivered, and ongoing disputes preventing project commencement.
July 28, 2025: ROC investigator issued a dismissal letter stating the allegations did not indicate grounds for discipline under A.R.S. § 32‑1154(A) and would not result in a citation. View Dismissal Letter
July 28, 2025: While the ROC dismissed the complaint on statutory grounds, the decision did not address the factual dispute over performance or payment, and expressly noted the option to seek relief in another forum.
July 28, 2025: Dave sent a formal demand letter requesting a partial refund of $10,000 based on the lack of physical work performed to date. Bobby responded the same day, disputing abandonment claims, asserting significant preconstruction value, and offering a one-time settlement of $5,114.85 with conditions including mutual release, confidentiality, and non-disparagement. View Letter & Response
July 28, 2025: Bobby's response escalated rhetoric, emphasizing alleged false ROC complaints and potential legal action, while framing his settlement offer as generous despite retaining two-thirds of the deposit.

August 2025

August 1, 2025: Met with construction attorney at Harrison Law to review options for recovery. Attorney advised that Arizona small claims court has a $10,000 limit, and that pursuing amounts above this would require litigation. Due to poor language in the contract, litigation would likely cost more than $15,000 to fight, exceeding the disputed amount.
August 1, 2025: Legal counsel’s assessment highlighted how the contract’s vague terms and structure favored the contractor, making cost‑effective recovery through court unlikely beyond the small claims limit.
August 5, 2025: Dave sent an email titled "Request for Immediate Resolution of Outstanding Contractual Concerns" offering a full $15,000 refund in exchange for confirming in writing that the agreement was honored professionally, and proposing to post positive public reviews and share a favorable story through the KSAZ FOX 10 consumer advocacy team. View Email
August 5, 2025: The message framed the refund as a reputational opportunity for Bobby, appealing to ego and public image rather than focusing solely on contractual or legal arguments.
August 8, 2025: Second ROC complaint submitted (ROC #2025‑07962) focusing on company structure misrepresentation and deceptive business practices related to Nevada vs. Arizona entity management.

Section C — Research

Robert Thomas Thompson — Public Court Records (Arizona)

Summaries based on Arizona Judicial Branch Public Access records provided by the homeowner. Always verify against the court of record.

Jesse Kathleen Thompson — Public Court Records (Arizona)

Handi Services — Official Public Records

Sources & References

Government & Regulatory
Business & Review Platforms

All information compiled from public records and official sources. Links provided for verification and reference purposes.