Jack The Roofer

We wish to address the complaint filed on the Revdex.com website by Mr [redacted] at 1:am on 02-1-It appears that his chief complaint is that no one communicated with him about the rain delay, yet we do have records of our communications with him about scheduling and delaysWe admit to scheduling delays due to rain and holidaysHowever, the facts remain, he did sign a contract for the amount of $for repair work on his roof, we did complete the work on December 2016, (albeit a couple of days late due to heavy rains over the course of a couple of holiday weeks which could not be helped and he was notified of via email)It is interesting that he waited calendar days after the work was completed and five days after he was invoiced, to begin to questioning our work and integrityOnly then did he request proofWhen we tried to offer him proof, he made it difficult if not impossible to schedule a time to do soHe asked us to provide photographic proof, once we provided it he questioned the validity of the photosThen he began with accusations of trespassingWhenever there is a refusal to pay for services rendered, it is standard business practice in our industry, to request payment a few times; then put a lien on the homeIt is also standard business practice to send clients who refuse to pay for services already rendered, to a collections agencyMr [redacted] has stated that employing these means of collecting monies due us, are bullying tacticsSince he filed the complaint against us on your web site at 1:am 2-01-he has sent us another email 2-1-at 12:pm, in which he offers to remove the complaint he filed in exchange for accepting exactly half of the amount he owes usWe are not going to respond to his further communications and will follow all legal recourse to collect the money he owes us

[redacted] TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am a senior citizen who resides in [redacted] , [redacted] Detroit Edison (DTE) is the provider of my electricity, which I might add as a senior citizen, is rather expensive On September 9, 2016, I called DTE to inquire about the process of having some trees trimmed that exist on an adjacent property but whose branches overhang onto my property and are entwined into what I perceive to be DTE's power linesI am concerned that should there be a severe storm in this community there is a great chance that the impacted power lines might be severed leading to a major service outage for my neighbors and myself The DTE customer representative told me I would be contacted within business hours as what DTE would/could do to rectify my concernsMore than double DTE's estimated response time passed without my be contactedI subsequently contacted DTE again and was told my property was visited on September 12, 2016, and they/DTE determined there was nothing they were obligated to doIn discussions with my neighbors DTE has in the past trimmed trees in the backyard of neighboring propertiesI informed the DTE customer service representative that no one knocked on my door, called me, or even left me a note indicating they had come out to investigate my concernsI know this to be true because I am recuperating from surgery and am home bound DTE at the very least should have spoken to me to assuage my concerns, but, given the reality is they have a monopoly and are the only game in townThey did not feel it worth their time to speak to and advise me as to my course of action I know that were I to complain to DTE my complaint would only find its way to a trash can or shredderI sincerely pray this is not the DTE corporate policy as it relates to the treatment of senior citizens or any other members of their client baseI know that my experiences were not warranted and my concerns should be addressed Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns that are probably the norm for other senior citizens I receive a litany of telephone calls from scammers who think that senior citizens are dim witted and naïve due to our advanced ageThe question that now arises is does DTE also think they can pacify and ignore us in terms to getting the services we as a class pay exorbitantly for?

As the original letter describes, the complaints includes more than just a lack of communicationIt appears, per the attached documentation provided by Jack the Roofer, that they were, at one point, willing to reconcile, but internally rescinded that offer once a Revdex.com complaint was openedApparently they feel it's more appropriate to penalize a customer for opening a complaint rather than trying to settle the dispute directly.Jack the Roofer claims that they adequately communicated scheduling needs at that the work was performed on Dec 29, 2016, however this is inaccurateNo workers were present until Dec 30, and no contact was made on that day to discuss work that would be / was completedThe lack of communication and dates/times needed to complete the work violate Section of their own contract (attached).Interestingly enough, Jack the Roofer has, time and time again, been unable to provide documentation of the full scope of work or when it was completeThe only work that was documented with photographs was replacement of the shingles, yet they demand payment for all servicesThey claim I made it "difficult if not impossible to schedule a time to [show proof]", however the exact opposite is trueEmail evidence shows that I had scheduled an appointment with Jack R [redacted] , which he completely missed - his office admits to him missing the appointment and does not attempt to reconcile thereafterYes, my contact requesting proof was made days after invoice..this was on the tail end of the holidays and post renovation when, frankly, it wasn't top of mindThis timing never came up in prior discussions, howeverMy request was promptly forwarded to Matt, the Director of Operations, but was never addressed by him and was instead met with another request for payment days laterIf timing is so important to this complaint, why did Jack the Roofer wait a whole days between my request and their next contact?Although it may be standard process to place a lien on the home after non-payment, it is fraudulent to file a day notice for services that were not rendered in the days prior to the notice.What's interesting is that Jack the Roofer would rather pursue legal action and incur such costs rather than settling directlyThey acknowledge my attempt to do so here, but have never directly responded to such attempts to settleIt's not appropriate for a business to threaten legal recourse when a customer requests documentation of the work, they fail to furnish it, and still the customer is attempting to settle the dispute - these are the bullying tactics referred toWe wish to address the complaint filed on the Revdex.com website by Mr [redacted] at 1:am on 02-1-It appears that his chief complaint is that no one communicated with him about the rain delay, yet we do have records of our communications with him about scheduling and delays.We admit to scheduling delays due to rain and holidaysHowever, the facts remain, he did sign a contract for the amount of $for repair work on his roof, we did complete the work on December 2016, (albeit a couple of days late due to heavy rains over the course of a couple of holiday weeks which could not be helped and he was notified of via email)It is interesting that he waited calendar days after the work was completed and five days after he was invoiced, to begin to questioning our work and integrityOnly then did he request proofWhen we tried to offer him proof, he made it difficult if not impossible to schedule a time to do soHe asked us to provide photographic proof, once we provided it he questioned the validity of the photosThen he began with accusations of trespassing.Whenever there is a refusal to pay for services rendered, it is standard business practice in our industry, to request payment a few times; then put a lien on the homeIt is also standard business practice to send clients who refuse to pay for services already rendered, to a collections agencyMr [redacted] has stated that employing these means of collecting monies due us, are bullying tactics.Since he filed the complaint against us on your web site at 1:am 2-01-he has sent us another email 2-1-at 12:pm, in which he offers to remove the complaint he filed in exchange for accepting exactly half of the amount he owes us.We are not going to respond to his further communications and will follow all legal recourse to collect the money he owes us

We wish to address the complaint filed on the Revdex.com website by Mr. [redacted] at 1:19 am on 02-1-2017. It appears that his chief complaint is that no one communicated with him about the rain delay, yet we do have records of our communications with him about scheduling and delays. We admit to...

scheduling delays due to rain and holidays. However, the facts remain, he did sign a contract for the amount of $950 for repair work on his roof, we  did complete the work on December 29 2016, (albeit a couple of days late due to heavy rains over the course of a couple of holiday weeks which could not be helped and he was notified of via email). It is interesting that he waited 11 calendar days after the work was completed and five days after he was invoiced, to begin to questioning our work and integrity. Only then did he request proof. When we tried to offer him proof, he made it difficult if not impossible to schedule a time to do so. He asked us to provide photographic proof, once we provided it he questioned the validity of the photos. Then he began with accusations of trespassing. Whenever there is a refusal to pay for services rendered, it is standard business practice in our industry, to request payment a few times; then put a lien on the home. It is also standard business practice to send clients who refuse to pay for services already rendered, to a collections agency. Mr. [redacted] has stated that employing these means of collecting monies due us, are bullying tactics. Since he filed the complaint against us on your web site at 1:19 am 2-01-2017 he has sent us another email 2-1-2017 at 12:18 pm, in which he offers to remove the complaint he filed in exchange for accepting exactly half of the amount he owes us. We are not going to respond to his further communications and will follow all legal recourse to collect the money he owes us.

We wish to offer the following rebuttal to Mr. [redacted] continued complaint.February 15, 2017 – In order to address Mr. [redacted] continued complaint, we would like to offer thefollowing rebuttal:Despite Mr. [redacted] claims to the contrary, the scope of work was provided to him with the originalcontract and he signed it. He claims that there were “multiple reschedules” we count one and only onewhich we emailed him about in the morning.We are unsure of what he means by “. . .that they were, at one point, willing to reconcile, but internallyrescinded that offer once a Revdex.com complaint was opened.” Any supposed offer of reconciliation was notinternally rescinded once a Revdex.com complaint was opened. The Revdex.com complaint was opened on February 1,2017 a full week AFTER we refused his offer to pay exactly half of the amount owed for services alreadyrendered at his request and pursuant to the signed contract. Mr. [redacted] may continue to claim that wedid not communicate with him from now to eternity, however in his complaint to the Arizona Registrarof Contractors (ROC)received by them on 2/7/2017, he admits that we did indeed communicate a dateto do the work as 12/28/2016. We also emailed him on the morning 28th that the work would have to bepostponed until the following day of Thursday 12/29/2016. He sustains that we did not complete thework according to the contract in violation of section one of said contract, “. . . Contractor willcommunicate with Owner about the dates and times required by Contractor to perform and completethe scope of work.” however, we did communicate when he was scheduled, what the scope of workwas, we also communicated when the work was postponed by one day, thus fulfilling Paragraph Oneof the Terms and conditions of the contract.With regards that he received no communication as to what work would be completed on that day,again, he did have that information in the signed contract. Furthermore, had he read the contractmore in depth than section one, he would have read Paragraph 4, Work Areas Clean, Ready, whichstates in part: “. . . Because of the nature of construction, Contractor cannot assume responsibility forany circumstances beyond our control, such as, for example, cracks in asphalt or concrete due to thepresence of equipment, seam splits in drywall due to workers presence, or unforeseen incidental orconsequential damages, including, without limitation, work or product or shipment delays and delayscaused by weather or any other conditions beyond our control. Contractor will make its best efforts topredict a start and completion date, but it is understood that because of the foregoing, these areestimates only, not guarantees.” scheduled dates are not guaranteed dates. This was agreed to by Mr.[redacted], with his own signature on said contract. We believe had he thoroughly read the contract thismatter would not be an issue at all.Contrary to his claim we performed the work on December 30th 2016, the work was clearly performedon Thursday, December 29, 2016 because it was rainy and drizzling on December 30th. The Valleyreceived .19 inches of rain on that date (http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/phoenixaz/85003/december-weather/346935?monyr=...⇄ us to perform roofing workin the rain or even with the threat of rain is unsafe and contrary to OSHA Standards(https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3863.pdf) under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1)of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), for our crews to work in the rain. Thisincludes fall and lightning hazards that can cause death or serious bodily harm.As of February 15, 2017, we have received payment in full for the contracted services, and he paid infull as he could not otherwise file a complaint before the ROC while he is in breach of contract.Jack the Roofer, Inc. fully anticipates that both the Revdex.com and ROC will see Mr. [redacted]’ true motivebehind the complaints.02/08/2017As the original letter describes, the complaints includes more than just a lack of communication. Itappears, per the attached documentation provided by Jack the Roofer, that they were, at one point,willing to reconcile, but internally rescinded that offer once a Revdex.com complaint was opened. Apparentlythey feel it's more appropriate to penalize a customer for opening a complaint rather than trying tosettle the dispute directly.Jack the Roofer claims that they adequately communicated scheduling needs at that the work wasperformed on Dec 29, 2016, however this is inaccurate. No workers were present until Dec 30, 2016 andno contact was made on that day to discuss work that would be/ was completed. The lack ofcommunication and dates/times needed to complete the work violate Section 1 of their own contract(attached).Interestingly enough, Jack the Roofer has, time and time again, been unable to provide documentation ofthe full scope of work or when it was complete. The only work that was documented with photographswas replacement of the shingles, yet they demand payment for all services. They claim I made it "difficultif not impossible to schedule a time to [show proof]", however the exact opposite is true. Email evidenceshows that I had scheduled an appointment with Jack R[redacted], which he completely missed - his officeadmits to him missing the appointment and does not attempt to reconcile thereafter. Yes, my contactrequesting proof was made 5 days after invoice .. this was on the tail end of the holidays and postrenovation when, frankly, it wasn't top of mind. This timing never came up in prior discussions, however.My request was promptly forwarded to Matt, the Director of Operations, but was never addressed byhim and was instead met with another request for payment 9 days later. If timing is so important to thiscomplaint, why did Jack the Roofer wait a whole 9 days between my request and their next contact?Although it may be standard process to place a lien on the home after non-payment, it is fraudulent tofile a 20 day notice for services that were not rendered in the 20 days prior to the notice.What's interesting is that Jack the Roofer would rather pursue legal action and incur such costs ratherthan settling directly. They acknowledge my attempt to do so here, but have never directly responded tosuch attempts to settle. It's not appropriate for a business to threaten legal recourse when a customerrequests documentation of the work, they fail to furnish it, and still the customer is attempting to settlethe dispute - these are the bullying tactics referred to.02/02/2017We wish to address the complaint filed on the Revdex.com website by Mr. [redacted] at 1 :19 am on 02-1-2017. It appears that his chief complaint is that no one communicated with him about the rain delay, yetwe do have records of our communications with him about scheduling and delays. We admit to scheduling delays due to rain and holidays. However, the facts remain, he did sign acontract for the amount of $950 for repair work on his roof, we did complete the work on December 292016, (albeit a couple of days late due to heavy rains over the course of a couple of holiday weeks whichcould not be helped and he was notified of via email). It is interesting that he waited 11 calendar daysafter the work was completed and five days after he was invoiced, to begin to questioning our work andintegrity. Only then did he request proof. When we tried to offer him proof, he made it difficult if notimpossible to schedule a time to do so. He asked us to provide photographic proof, once we provided ithe questioned the validity of the photos. Then he began with accusations of trespassing.Whenever there is a refusal to pay for services rendered, it is standard business practice in our industry,to request payment a few times; then put a lien on the home. It is also standard business practice tosend clients who refuse to pay for services already rendered, to a collections agency. Mr. [redacted] hasstated that employing these means of collecting monies due us, are bullying tactics.Since he filed the complaint against us on your web site at 1:19 am 2-01-2017 he has sent us anotheremail 2-1-2017 at 12:18 pm, in which he offers to remove the complaint he filed in exchange foraccepting exactly half of the amount he owes us.We are not going to respond to his further communications and will follow all legal recourse to collectthe money he owes us.

[redacted]

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I am a senior citizen who resides in [redacted]. Detroit Edison (DTE) is the provider of my electricity, which I might add as a senior citizen, is rather expensive.

On September 9, 2016, I called DTE to inquire about the process of having some trees trimmed that exist on an adjacent property but whose branches overhang onto my property and are entwined into what I perceive to be DTE's power lines. I am concerned that should there be a severe storm in this community there is a great chance that the impacted power lines might be severed leading to a major service outage for my neighbors and myself. The DTE customer representative told me I would be contacted within 72 business hours as what DTE would/could do to rectify my concerns. More than double DTE's estimated response time passed without my be contacted. I subsequently contacted DTE again and was told my property was visited on September 12, 2016, and they/DTE determined there was nothing they were obligated to do. In discussions with my neighbors DTE has in the past trimmed trees in the backyard of neighboring properties. I informed the DTE customer service representative that no one knocked on my door, called me, or even left me a note indicating they had come out to investigate my concerns. I know this to be true because I am recuperating from surgery and am home bound.

DTE at the very least should have spoken to me to assuage my concerns, but, given the reality is they have a monopoly and are the only game in town. They did not feel it worth their time to speak to and advise me as to my course of action.

I know that were I to complain to DTE my complaint would only find its way to a trash can or shredder. I sincerely pray this is not the DTE corporate policy as it relates to the treatment of senior citizens or any other members of their client base. I know that my experiences were not warranted and my concerns should be addressed.

Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns that are probably the norm for other senior citizens. I receive a litany of telephone calls from scammers who think that senior citizens are dim witted and naïve due to our advanced age. The question that now arises is does DTE also think they can pacify and ignore us in terms to getting the services we as a class pay exorbitantly for?

As the original letter describes, the complaints includes more than just a lack of communication. It appears, per the attached documentation provided by Jack the Roofer, that they were, at one point, willing to reconcile, but internally rescinded that offer once a Revdex.com complaint was opened. Apparently they feel it's more appropriate to penalize a customer for opening a complaint rather than trying to settle the dispute directly.Jack the Roofer claims that they adequately communicated scheduling needs at that the work was performed on Dec 29, 2016, however this is inaccurate. No workers were present until Dec 30, 2016 and no contact was made on that day to discuss work that would be / was completed. The lack of communication and dates/times needed to complete the work violate Section 1 of their own contract (attached).Interestingly enough, Jack the Roofer has, time and time again, been unable to provide documentation of the full scope of work or when it was complete. The only work that was documented with photographs was replacement of the shingles, yet they demand payment for all services. They claim I made it "difficult if not impossible to schedule a time to [show proof]", however the exact opposite is true. Email evidence shows that I had scheduled an appointment with Jack R[redacted], which he completely missed - his office admits to him missing the appointment and does not attempt to reconcile thereafter. Yes, my contact requesting proof was made 5 days after invoice..this was on the tail end of the holidays and post renovation when, frankly, it wasn't top of mind. This timing never came up in prior discussions, however. My request was promptly forwarded to Matt, the Director of Operations, but was never addressed by him and was instead met with another request for payment 9 days later. If timing is so important to this complaint, why did Jack the Roofer wait a whole 9 days between my request and their next contact?Although it may be standard process to place a lien on the home after non-payment, it is fraudulent to file a 20 day notice for services that were not rendered in the 20 days prior to the notice.What's interesting is that Jack the Roofer would rather pursue legal action and incur such costs rather than settling directly. They acknowledge my attempt to do so here, but have never directly responded to such attempts to settle. It's not appropriate for a business to threaten legal recourse when a customer requests documentation of the work, they fail to furnish it, and still the customer is attempting to settle the dispute - these are the bullying tactics referred to. We wish to address the complaint filed on the Revdex.com website by Mr. [redacted] at 1:19 am on 02-1-2017. It appears that his chief complaint is that no one communicated with him about the rain delay, yet we do have records of our communications with him about scheduling and delays.We admit to scheduling delays due to rain and holidays. However, the facts remain, he did sign a contract for the amount of $950 for repair work on his roof, we  did complete the work on December 29 2016, (albeit a couple of days late due to heavy rains over the course of a couple of holiday weeks which could not be helped and he was notified of via email). It is interesting that he waited 11 calendar days after the work was completed and five days after he was invoiced, to begin to questioning our work and integrity. Only then did he request proof. When we tried to offer him proof, he made it difficult if not impossible to schedule a time to do so. He asked us to provide photographic proof, once we provided it he questioned the validity of the photos. Then he began with accusations of trespassing.Whenever there is a refusal to pay for services rendered, it is standard business practice in our industry, to request payment a few times; then put a lien on the home. It is also standard business practice to send clients who refuse to pay for services already rendered, to a collections agency. Mr. [redacted] has stated that employing these means of collecting monies due us, are bullying tactics.Since he filed the complaint against us on your web site at 1:19 am 2-01-2017 he has sent us another email 2-1-2017 at 12:18 pm, in which he offers to remove the complaint he filed in exchange for accepting exactly half of the amount he owes us.We are not going to respond to his further communications and will follow all legal recourse to collect the money he owes us.

Dear Ms. [redacted]:

Attached is a copy of the May 10, 2010 Roof Inspection Report and Proposal (herein the “Proposal”) from Jack The Roofer (“JTR”) to [redacted].  Note that the phrase used in Mr. [redacted]’s Complaint, “a no disclaimer 10 year warranty on roof coating contract,” does not appear anywhere.  It is not clear whether Mr. [redacted] used the phrase to bolster his complaint or to misdirect attention from the facts. The Proposal clearly does state:

“[redacted] Roofing is not liable for roof problems which have no visible manifestation at the time of inspection (emphasis added).  Statements and opinions given herein are for your information, and are not given as a warranty of the present roof system(s) (emphasis added) by [redacted] Roofing.  . . . .  [redacted] Roofing will furnish a 7 year labor guarantee (emphasis original), on this work, and manufacturer’s warranty on material, upon request.  . . . .” “7 yr no leak warranty, 10 year coating system”

The flaws in Mr. [redacted]’s complaint are:  (a) there was no visible manifestation in May 2010 of the roof substrate problems that have appeared over the last four years;  (b) the roof does not leak at this time;  and (c) his objections concern the visible appearance of the roof that has been caused over the last four years by the deterioration of the roof substrate that was installed by some other roofer before JTR applied the roof top coat in 2010.  (JTR does not know how many years passed from the installation of the roof substrate and roof top coat before JTR arrived in May 2010.  Any roof substrate has a limited useful life in Arizona.)  The Proposal makes clear that in 2010 JTR gave Mr. [redacted]  no “warranty of the present roof system(s).”

According to statements made to JTR by Mr. [redacted], Mr. [redacted] has had no leaks.  In the Complaint he even states:  “A proposal was submitted and stated the roof looked in good standing and all it needs is a coating restoration.” Mr. [redacted]’s complaint is really of aesthetics:  He does not like the appearance of the roof top coat.  Apparently he wants JTR, at its expense, to satisfy Mr. [redacted]’s subjective opinion of how the roof top coat should look in 2014 in order to enhance the salability of his home.  The only practical way to solve the aesthetic issue to the satisfaction of Mr. [redacted] is to first repair the roof substrate, work which is not the responsibility of JTR.  Even if a new top coat is applied, without first making repairs to the roof substrate, the aesthetics issue will not be resolved because reflective cracks from the roof substrate will again appear through the new top coat. Mr. [redacted] tries to support his contention by referencing statements or reports from “a certified building inspector,” “an HAAG Certified Roof Inspector from American Technologies Inc.” and a “NRCA roofing contractor VIP roofing in Phoenix . . . .”  (Note that JTR is also certified by HAAG.)  JTR does not know what Mr. [redacted] told these companies about the limited scope of JTR’s original work or the history of the substrate or the facts, or whether the companies simply agreed with his opinion in order to get some work.  However, it is interesting that Mr. [redacted] refused JTR’s March 12, 2014 e-mail request for the opportunity for an onsite inspection by the roofing materials manufacturer’s representative and by another reputable roofing contractor. At this juncture JTR is afraid to “touch” Mr. [redacted]’s roof because of his unreasonable demands on JTR, and the likelihood that any additional work performed by JTR will only result in more complaints from him.  Mr. [redacted] was given a 7 year “no leak” warranty.  The roof does not leak.  Nothing in the Proposal relates to physical appearance, or Mr. [redacted]’s subjective views about appearance.  Mr. [redacted] should either move-on without any more work on the roof or add whatever costs he elects to incur to the sales price of his home.

Sincerely,

JACK THE ROOFER

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

JTR inspected the roof on 5/10/2010 and proposed to coat the roof with elastomeric acrylic which is used to protect the foam surface for 10 years.

QUOTING FROM FOAM ROOFING  "Today there are foam roofs that have been in place for decades, and by all appearances they should be able to last indefinitley as long as they are properly maintained.  A protective elastomeric top coat is required which is typically sprayed on as well, but it is also possible to be applied with hand or power rollers.

JTR applied the co[redacted]ng in 2010 with a 10 year guarantee. It is obvious the coating has failed to maintain its integrity in less than 4 years. The coating needs to be recoated to prevent damage to the foam roofing system.

Regards,

[redacted]

Dear Ms. [redacted]:

Attached is a copy of the May 10, 2010 Roof Inspection Report and Proposal (herein the “Proposal”) from Jack The Roofer (“JTR”) to [redacted].  Note that the phrase used in Mr. [redacted]’s Complaint, “a no disclaimer 10 year...

warranty on roof coating contract,” does not appear anywhere.  It is not clear whether Mr. [redacted] used the phrase to bolster his complaint or to misdirect attention from the facts. The Proposal clearly does state:

“[redacted] Roofing is not liable for roof problems which have no visible manifestation at the time of inspection (emphasis added).  Statements and opinions given herein are for your information, and are not given as a warranty of the present roof system(s) (emphasis added) by [redacted].  . . . .  [redacted] will furnish a 7 year labor guarantee (emphasis original), on this work, and manufacturer’s warranty on material, upon request.  . . . .” “7 yr no leak warranty, 10 year coating system”

The flaws in Mr. [redacted]’s complaint are:  (a) there was no visible manifest[redacted]on in May 2010 of the roof substrate problems that have appeared over the last four years;  (b) the roof does not leak at this time;  and (c) his objections concern the visible appearance of the roof that has been caused over the last four years by the deterioration of the roof substrate that was installed by some other roofer before JTR applied the roof top coat in 2010.  (JTR does not know how many years passed from the install[redacted]on of the roof substrate and roof top coat before JTR arrived in May 2010.  Any roof substrate has a limited useful life in Arizona.)  The Proposal makes clear that in 2010 JTR gave Mr. [redacted]  no “warranty of the present roof system(s).”

According to statements made to JTR by Mr. [redacted], Mr. [redacted] has had no leaks.  In the Complaint he even states:  “A proposal was submitted and stated the roof looked in good standing and all it needs is a coating restoration.” Mr. [redacted]’s complaint is really of aesthetics:  He does not like the appearance of the roof top coat.  Apparently he wants JTR, at its expense, to satisfy Mr. [redacted]’s subjective opinion of how the roof top coat should look in 2014 in order to enhance the salability of his home.  The only practical way to solve the aesthetic issue to the satisfaction of Mr. [redacted] is to first repair the roof substrate, work which is not the responsibility of JTR.  Even if a new top coat is applied, without first making repairs to the roof substrate, the aesthetics issue will not be resolved because reflective cracks from the roof substrate will again appear through the new top coat. Mr. [redacted] tries to support his contention by referencing statements or reports from “a certified building inspector,” “an [redacted] Certified Roof Inspector from [redacted].” and a “[redacted] roofing contractor [redacted] in Phoenix . . . .”  (Note that JTR is also certified by [redacted].)  JTR does not know what Mr. [redacted] told these companies about the limited scope of JTR’s original work or the history of the substrate or the facts, or whether the companies simply agreed with his opinion in order to get some work.  However, it is interesting that Mr. [redacted] refused JTR’s March 12, 2014 e-mail request for the opportunity for an onsite inspection by the roofing materials manufacturer’s representative and by another reputable roofing contractor. At this juncture JTR is afraid to “touch” Mr. [redacted]’s roof because of his unreasonable demands on JTR, and the likelihood that any additional work performed by JTR will only result in more complaints from him.  Mr. [redacted] was given a 7 year “no leak” warranty.  The roof does not leak.  Nothing in the Proposal relates to physical appearance, or Mr. [redacted]’s subjective views about appearance.  Mr. [redacted] should either move-on without any more work on the roof or add whatever costs he elects to incur to the sales price of his home.

Sincerely,

JACK THE ROOFER

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

JTR inspected the roof on 5/10/2010 and proposed to coat the roof with elastomeric acrylic which is used to protect the foam surface for 10 years.

QUOTING FROM FOAM ROOFING  "Today there are foam roofs that have been in place for decades, and by all appearances they should be able to last indefinitley as long as they are properly maintained.  A protective elastomeric top coat is required which is typically sprayed on as well, but it is also possible to be applied with hand or power rollers.

JTR applied the coating in 2010 with a 10 year guarantee. It is obvious the coating has failed to maintain its integrity in less than 4 years. The coating needs to be recoated to prevent damage to the foam roofing system.

Regards,

Review: Contractor provided a no disclaimer 10 year warranty on roof coating contract dated 5/10/2010. Additional email guarantee was sent on 5/24.2010 prior to receiving the order to perform the coating order. The contractor came to repair the coating cracks on 3/3/2014 but left within 60 minutes with the work left undone. promising to return the next day but has not returned.

Customer obtained a certified building inspector report showing the defects in the coating and recommending the roof be re coated. An additional roof inspection was made by an HAAG Certified Roof Inspector from AmericanTechnologies Inc. ATI is a national restoration/remodel company located in Phoenix. This inspection report states the entire roof needs to be re coated.

An NRCA roofing contractor VIP roofing in Phoenix inspected the roof and also agreed the entire roof needed to be re coated. A proposal was submitted and stated the roof looked in good standing and all it needs is a coating restoration.

Although the contractor agreed in a meeting 3/3/2014, cracks in the coating were to be repaired under the contract warrant, they are now backing away.Desired Settlement: Have the roof restored to the home salable condition of the contract

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]:

Attached is a copy of the May 10, 2010 Roof Inspection Report and Proposal (herein the “Proposal”) from Jack The Roofer (“JTR”) to [redacted]. Note that the phrase used in Mr. [redacted]’s Complaint, “a no disclaimer 10 year warranty on roof coating contract,” does not appear anywhere. It is not clear whether Mr. [redacted] used the phrase to bolster his complaint or to misdirect attention from the facts.

The Proposal clearly does state:

“[redacted] Roofing is not liable for roof problems which have no visible manifestation at the time of inspection (emphasis added). Statements and opinions given herein are for your information, and are not given as a warranty of the present roof system(s) (emphasis added) by [redacted]. . . . . [redacted] will furnish a 7 year labor guarantee (emphasis original), on this work, and manufacturer’s warranty on material, upon request. . . . .”

“7 yr no leak warranty, 10 year coating system”

The flaws in Mr. [redacted]’s complaint are: (a) there was no visible manifest[redacted]on in May 2010 of the roof substrate problems that have appeared over the last four years; (b) the roof does not leak at this time; and (c) his objections concern the visible appearance of the roof that has been caused over the last four years by the deterioration of the roof substrate that was installed by some other roofer before JTR applied the roof top coat in 2010. (JTR does not know how many years passed from the install[redacted]on of the roof substrate and roof top coat before JTR arrived in May 2010. Any roof substrate has a limited useful life in Arizona.) The Proposal makes clear that in 2010 JTR gave Mr. [redacted] no “warranty of the present roof system(s).”

According to statements made to JTR by Mr. [redacted], Mr. [redacted] has had no leaks. In the Complaint he even states: “A proposal was submitted and stated the roof looked in good standing and all it needs is a coating restoration.”

Mr. [redacted]’s complaint is really of aesthetics: He does not like the appearance of the roof top coat. Apparently he wants JTR, at its expense, to satisfy Mr. [redacted]’s subjective opinion of how the roof top coat should look in 2014 in order to enhance the salability of his home. The only practical way to solve the aesthetic issue to the satisfaction of Mr. [redacted] is to first repair the roof substrate, work which is not the responsibility of JTR. Even if a new top coat is applied, without first making repairs to the roof substrate, the aesthetics issue will not be resolved because reflective cracks from the roof substrate will again appear through the new top coat.

Mr. [redacted] tries to support his contention by referencing statements or reports from “a certified building inspector,” “an [redacted] Certified Roof Inspector from [redacted].” and a “[redacted] roofing contractor [redacted] in Phoenix . . . .” (Note that JTR is also certified by [redacted].) JTR does not know what Mr. [redacted] told these companies about the limited scope of JTR’s original work or the history of the substrate or the facts, or whether the companies simply agreed with his opinion in order to get some work. However, it is interesting that Mr. [redacted] refused JTR’s March 12, 2014 e-mail request for the opportunity for an onsite inspection by the roofing materials manufacturer’s representative and by another reputable roofing contractor.

At this juncture JTR is afraid to “touch” Mr. [redacted]’s roof because of his unreasonable demands on JTR, and the likelihood that any additional work performed by JTR will only result in more complaints from him. Mr. [redacted] was given a 7 year “no leak” warranty. The roof does not leak. Nothing in the Proposal relates to physical appearance, or Mr. [redacted]’s subjective views about appearance. Mr. [redacted] should either move-on without any more work on the roof or add whatever costs he elects to incur to the sales price of his home.

Sincerely,

JACK THE ROOFER

Review: The work on our new roof was completed in Apr 2011. We still have 14 months left on our 5 year workmanship warranty. Since the installation, we have had to have someone come out for repairs or fixes approximately 5 or 6 times. Always having to make numerous calls before getting a call back. The most recent complaint has been since Aug 2014. I have called repeatedly without any response. I did manage to get a hold of [redacted] on Sept 03, 2014. He told me he would be out the next day to replace the shingles. He never showed up and have not heard from him since, even though I have called and left more messages. This is the second time we have had to have the roof line shingles replaced because they were not installed correctly. Also, when I look up through the attic, I can see daylight which means some part of the the roof is not covered with shingles.Desired Settlement: Would like to have the missing shingles replaced correctly, have all of the shingles re-inspected and secured if necessary and have extra roof line shingles left so that we do not have to go through this problem again in the future.

Surveying JTR's roof repairs from the ground, I immediately noticed that the crew had not preserved a clear pathway down the center of the roof's valley. My home stands in the shade of a huge eucalyptus tree; and absent open drainage, leaf litter will clog the valley, the rain water will back up, and the roof will eventually leak along the seams. The crew leader had promised to leave a clear pathway, but didn't. Concerned, I fetched my ladder to take a closer look. I found the porch gutter filled with bits of tile, mortar, felt, and other assorted roofing debris. Moreover, the crew hadn't secured the end tiles above the front-porch entry way (a dangerous oversight). Lifting one of them up, I discovered an unsealed vertical seam (always a "no-no"). Next, I examined the post that the crew had installed under my back porch. I saw that the post wasn't secured to its footing; and a little digging revealed that the footing was just an oblong piece of concrete that the crew had placed directly onto the ground. Absent buried footings, a storm like the one we had a few years ago (which had 70+ mph winds) would have blown my 500 square-foot porch away like a giant sail.
JTR's damage-control representative, [redacted], expressed JTR's dismay. He said that he would deal with the crew personally, and offered to either refund my money or correct the deficiencies. I bought into [redacted]'s story at first. But upon reflection, I don't. Most customers won't recognize a shoddy roof job until it starts leaking on them five years later. And almost nobody is going to check to see how deep the footing for a post has been planted. So by the time that the average customer realizes that they have been scammed (if they ever do), it is much too late. It's JTR's job to establish quality standards for their work crews and to verify that those standards are being met. Good damage control is great, but it doesn't compensate customers who don't know that they've been had.
A few weeks after receiving my refund, my stock of reserve tiles--which had been stacked on the side of my house for 15 years--disappeared.

This was our 3rd experience with Jack the Roofer, on each occassion they have responded promptly to our call for an inspection, provided a credible explanation of what our problem was, and submitted a reasonably priced bid. The job was done as scheduled by workmen who knew what they were doing, did it right, and cleaned up even to my wife's satisfaction.

If you want a roofer that you can trust, and who will do it right for a fair price, call Jack.