Raboin LLC

Better Business Bureau: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below This excuse is unacceptableThis issue has been pending for a long time and they ignored ll my previous requests.Also, he did call last week and said he would be out yesterday, but called and said his truck had broken down - just another excuse to delay resolving this issue Regards, [redacted]

We did remove snow and ice from the home on February 12, and you did pay with a check for that service The weather forecast for blizzard conditions (Two days later) on February 14, resulted in a significant snow stormYour 2nd ice dam occurred “Within a week” which followed at least the 2/14/storm.You stated that someone came to the home seven days after our service and removed the new ice dam and the leaking did not return– There were also no significant storms following February 19, We never said that we would “Solve the (Leak) problem” or guarantee that new ice dams would not occur following future snow storms, but the leak did cease following our ice dam serviceIce dams form behind a barrier of elevated ice– Interval channels through it, releases the contained waterSnow removal a few feet above the cold edge usually prevent its returnLevel ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below The businesses update is a lieThe stain has expanded as a results from the latest rains, so this is a leak!We did not resolve this on good terms because their employee did nothing when they returned, in fact, I had a loud argument with the owner a couple of days earlier, expressed my dissatisfaction, and requested a refund, which he flat out refused! Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below I previously filed the following complaint for the wrong business under complaint # [redacted] When I closed that complaint, our complaint to this company, which is the company that we dealt with, also was closed in errorWe have not reached satisfactory resolution of this issue with this companyWe did receive a call from [redacted] Raboin today who requested photos of the workWe are collecting the photos to send to himOriginal complaint: Our duplex (which is arranged as a condo) had some leaks from ice dams in the guttersWe contacted several roofers in the area [redacted] Raboin said he would come the next day, which was important because of the amount of leakingFirst, he did not come until the next daySecond, his team spent just on hour removing snow from the roofWe explained that they had agreed to work on both sides of the house, so they went back up for another hourThey removed only a portion of the snow from the roof and a portion of ice from the gutters, but not enough to remove the ice dams and fix the leakingThird, they estimated $for the job but charged $for two hours of work that did not solve the problemWe called for them to come back but never heard from themWe had to hire a second rooferThis roofer spent three hours, got all the ice out of the gutters, and we haven't had a leak sinceHe charged $I have called Raboin several times and haven't received a call backWe have photos of how much ice and snow they left on the roofWe would like $refunded as their work did not fix the problem and we had to hire other roofers to fix it Regards, [redacted] ***

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments belowAfter we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from MrRaboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second rooferHe also requested to know the name of the second rooferWhen I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontationalHis message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second rooferOverall, the response he provided on 3/19/does not address our concernsFirst, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be doneThe only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workersA business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project." At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was completeFour man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow stormThe "significant" storm that MrRaboin references left only inches of snow, which is far less than the inches in February that resulted in no ice dams on our house ( [redacted] )Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roofFurthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfallHowever, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fellIn contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the workInstead, we received no folluntil we filed a complaint with the Revdex.comEven after our filing, the responses from *** Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the workInstead, MrRaboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaintHe goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks)The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixedSimilarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaintWhat he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice damsChanneling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of workAlso, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent himThe claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roofBut again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaintWe were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtainedNothing in the response from MrRaboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concernsWe do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com After we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from MrRaboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second rooferHe also requested to know the name of the second rooferWhen I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontationalHis message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second rooferOverall, the response he provided on 3/19/does not address our concernsFirst, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be doneThe only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workersA business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project." At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was completeFour man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow stormThe "significant" storm that MrRaboin references left only inches of snow, which is far less than the inches in February that resulted in no ice dams on our house ( [redacted] )Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roofFurthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfallHowever, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fellIn contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the workInstead, we received no folluntil we filed a complaint with the Revdex.comEven after our filing, the responses from *** Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the workInstead, MrRaboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaintHe goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks)The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixedSimilarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaintWhat he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice damsChanneling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of workAlso, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent himThe claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roofBut again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaintWe were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtainedNothing in the response from MrRaboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concernsWe do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com.After we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from MrRaboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second rooferHe also requested to know the name of the second rooferWhen I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontationalHis message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second rooferOverall, the response he provided on 3/19/does not address our concernsFirst, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be doneThe only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workersA business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project." At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was completeFour man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow stormThe "significant" storm that MrRaboin references left only inches of snow, which is far less than the inches in February that resulted in no ice dams on our house ( [redacted] )Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roofFurthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfallHowever, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fellIn contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the workInstead, we received no folluntil we filed a complaint with the Revdex.comEven after our filing, the responses from *** Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the workInstead, MrRaboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaintHe goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks)The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixedSimilarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaintWhat he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice damsChanneling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of workAlso, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent himThe claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roofBut again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaintWe were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtainedNothing in the response from MrRaboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concernsWe do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com.After we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from MrRaboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second rooferHe also requested to know the name of the second rooferWhen I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontationalHis message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second rooferOverall, the response he provided on 3/19/does not address our concernsFirst, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be doneThe only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workersA business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project." At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was completeFour man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow stormThe "significant" storm that MrRaboin references left only inches of snow, which is far less than the inches in February that resulted in no ice dams on our house ( [redacted] )Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roofFurthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfallHowever, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fellIn contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the workInstead, we received no folluntil we filed a complaint with the Revdex.comEven after our filing, the responses from *** Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the workInstead, MrRaboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaintHe goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks)The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixedSimilarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaintWhat he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice damsChanneling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of workAlso, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent himThe claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roofBut again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaintWe were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtainedNothing in the response from MrRaboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concernsWe do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com

RevDex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] We have heard back from the correct Raboin company and apologize for the confusion with your companyI understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved Regards, [redacted] ***

The company has been in contact with the cus***er [redacted] will return ***'s call he placed Wednesday March 11th when she is available Thursday, 3/Contact with the other cus***er at the residence,***, has also been madeA solution to this discrepancy is in the works

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted] Please add your rejection comments below [I am not sure about your comments where you have been contacting me for monthsI think its the other way around where I been trying to get a responesOtherwise I won't be contacting HomeAdvisor and Revdex.com for assisantI was there on 7-on site and no one show up? But nevertheless, as discussed over the phone today, you will call me within a week as promisedHope I will hear back from you within a week as this is the timeframe I will wait anymore.] Regards, [redacted] ***

Our company has been reaching out to the customer for months nowThe issue at hand is that the customer was unavailable when we came out to the job siteWithout the customer's input, reconciling the discrepancy has been impossibleWe are continuing to contact the customer, including today
when we assured, within the next week, so long as the customer was ON SITE, the job would be completed to their satisfaction

*** Raboin
2:PM (hours ago)
to me, chuck
Denise,
As I voiced on the phone, *** has been in contact with *** (who is CC'd here) regarding the resolution of this residing issue.*** is making arrangements to take care of *** on Sunday, August 17th
Thank You,
*** (Office Coordinator)
Office Phone: *** ***
Email:***@hotmail.com
www.raboin.com

Better Business...

Bureau:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does satisfy my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted]. We have heard back from the correct Raboin company and apologize for the confusion with your company. I understand that by choosing to accept the business response that my complaint will be closed as resolved. 
Regards,
[redacted]

12/14/14   Revdex.com:   I will respond to him tomorrow. - I apologize. My foreman was injured as a pedestrian and has been out a week. - During that time I lost tract of giving a quick response to you. Regards,[redacted] Office: [redacted] CP [redacted].

Better Business...

Bureau:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
This excuse is unacceptable. This issue has been pending for a long time and they ignored ll my previous requests.Also, he did call last week and said he would be out yesterday, but called and said his truck had broken down - just another excuse to delay resolving this issue.
Regards,
[redacted]

Mr. [redacted] had a leak and we found and repaired it. At the time, there was A ceiling stain directly below the repair. The minimum charge was $370.00 which he paid. There was no guarantee of a call back or that the leak would be stopped.[redacted] reported that the leak persisted and we returned and removed above the leak roof shingles but, there was no sign of continued leaking. Gutters above were clean and free running.  – The ceiling stain appeared to be the same as the original in size and color. Indicating that the leakwas repaired on our 1st attempt. – We were allowed into the attic and there was no rafter staining or wet insulation.– [redacted] was told and indicated that he was satisfied.Complaints come from his children, not him.Regards,[redacted]Office Phone: [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
[I am not sure about your comments where you have been contacting me for months. I think its the other way around where I been trying to get a respones. Otherwise I won't be contacting HomeAdvisor and Revdex.com for assisant. I was there on 7-10 on site and no one show up? But nevertheless, as discussed over the phone today, you will call me within a week as promised. Hope I will hear back from you within a week as this is the timeframe I will wait anymore.]
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint #[redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
The businesses update is a lie. The stain has expanded as a results from the latest rains, so this is a leak!We did not resolve this on good terms because their employee did nothing when they returned, in fact, I had a loud argument with the owner a couple of days earlier, expressed my dissatisfaction, and requested a refund, which he flat out refused!
Regards,
[redacted]

We did remove snow and ice from the home on February 12, 2015 and you did pay with a check for that service.  The weather forecast for blizzard conditions (Two days later) on February 14, 2015 resulted in a significant snow storm. Your 2nd ice dam occurred “Within a week” which followed at least the 2/14/15 storm.You stated that someone came to the home seven days after our service and removed the new ice dam and the leaking did not return. – There were also no significant storms following February 19, 2015. We never said that we would “Solve the (Leak) problem” or guarantee that new ice dams would not occur following future snow storms, but the leak did cease following our ice dam service. Ice dams form behind a barrier of elevated ice. – Interval channels through it, releases the contained water. Snow removal a few feet above the cold edge usually prevent its return. Level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. After we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from Mr. Raboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second roofer. He also requested to know the name of the second roofer. When I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontational. His message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/2015 is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second roofer. Overall, the response he provided on 3/19/2015 does not address our concerns. First, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be done. The only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workers. A business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project."  At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was complete. Four man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow storm. The "significant" storm that Mr. Raboin references left only 16 inches of snow, which is far less than the 25 inches in February 2013 that resulted in no ice dams on our house ([redacted]). Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roof. Furthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfall. However, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fell. In contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the work. Instead, we received no follow-up until we filed a complaint with the Revdex.com. Even after our filing, the responses from [redacted] Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the work. Instead, Mr. Raboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaint. He goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks). The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixed. Similarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaint. What he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice dams. Channeling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of work. Also, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent him. The claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roof. But again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaint. We were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtained. Nothing in the response from Mr. Raboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concerns. We do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com.
 
 After we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from Mr. Raboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second roofer. He also requested to know the name of the second roofer. When I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontational. His message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/2015 is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second roofer. Overall, the response he provided on 3/19/2015 does not address our concerns. First, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be done. The only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workers. A business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project."  At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was complete. Four man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow storm. The "significant" storm that Mr. Raboin references left only 16 inches of snow, which is far less than the 25 inches in February 2013 that resulted in no ice dams on our house ([redacted]). Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roof. Furthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfall. However, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fell. In contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the work. Instead, we received no follow-up until we filed a complaint with the Revdex.com. Even after our filing, the responses from [redacted] Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the work. Instead, Mr. Raboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaint. He goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks). The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixed. Similarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaint. What he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice dams. Channeling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of work. Also, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent him. The claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roof. But again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaint. We were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtained. Nothing in the response from Mr. Raboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concerns. We do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com.After we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from Mr. Raboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second roofer. He also requested to know the name of the second roofer. When I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontational. His message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/2015 is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second roofer. Overall, the response he provided on 3/19/2015 does not address our concerns. First, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be done. The only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workers. A business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project."  At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was complete. Four man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow storm. The "significant" storm that Mr. Raboin references left only 16 inches of snow, which is far less than the 25 inches in February 2013 that resulted in no ice dams on our house ([redacted]). Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roof. Furthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfall. However, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fell. In contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the work. Instead, we received no follow-up until we filed a complaint with the Revdex.com. Even after our filing, the responses from [redacted] Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the work. Instead, Mr. Raboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaint. He goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks). The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixed. Similarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaint. What he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice dams. Channeling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of work. Also, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent him. The claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roof. But again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaint. We were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtained. Nothing in the response from Mr. Raboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concerns. We do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com.After we notified the Revdex.com of the inferior work done by this company, I received a call from Mr. Raboin requesting a timeline of his employees' work, photos of our roof, and a copy of the check that we paid to the second roofer. He also requested to know the name of the second roofer. When I told him I was not comfortable supplying that information and that it was not relevant to our concerns about the work of his company, he became confrontational. His message on the Revdex.com website dated 3/19/2015 is a reply to the email we sent to him directly responding to his request, which included the timeline, photos, and a redacted copy of the check we paid to the second roofer. Overall, the response he provided on 3/19/2015 does not address our concerns. First, we had to send his workers back to the roof several times because they did not do what we agreed would be done. The only reason enough snow was removed from our roof to temporarily stop the leaks was because we were on site to monitor the work and his workers. A business with integrity would have done the job that was agreed upon, well and without requiring such close supervision.Second, when he quoted us his price, he justified it by describing the work as "a major project."  At the rate we paid ($2500), even accounting for the extra cost of the job hazards and insurance, we would have expected the workers to be on site for more than half a day, not trying to leave after two hours and before the job was complete. Four man-hours is not a "major project" that justifies a cost four times what other roofers charged for the same amount of (and better quality) work.Also, we expected his work to be more than the bare minimum, and certainly the work should have survived a single snow storm. The "significant" storm that Mr. Raboin references left only 16 inches of snow, which is far less than the 25 inches in February 2013 that resulted in no ice dams on our house ([redacted]). Thus, the ongoing damming and leaking was not the result of the interval storm but of their failure to adequately clear our roof. Furthermore, in the process of pressing his two workers to spend more than two hours working on our roof, we expressed concern that the ice dams would return, especially given the expected future snowfall. However, when declining to perform further work beyond three hours, his workers repeatedly stated that their work would prevent the ice dams from returning even if more snow fell. In contrast, we have had snow ("significant" or not) since the other roofers came, and the ice dams have not returned.In addition, we would have expected a professional and swift response when we called with concerns about the work. Instead, we received no follow-up until we filed a complaint with the Revdex.com. Even after our filing, the responses from [redacted] Raboin have not addressed our core complaints about the cost and the quality of the work. Instead, Mr. Raboin has responded by implying that a subsequent storm was the cause of our trouble rather than the poor quality work documented in our complaint. He goes on to say that, in any event, he never said he would "solve the leak problem." However, this was implied in the service - we hired him to solve our ice dam problem (which was causing leaks). The work of his company did not solve the ice dam problem and, therefore, the leaks were not fixed. Similarly, his response with a description of ice dams and how to resolve them are not relevant to our complaint. What he describes is the minimum of what should be done to address ice dams. Channeling through ice and removing a few feet above the edge represents minimal ice dam remediation and is certainly not $800/hour worth of work. Also, it is worth noting that [redacted] Raboin himself did not do any of the work on this job, and the only reason he has any idea what our roof looked like is because of the photos we sent him. The claim that "level ice in a gutter is not a dam, and removal is not necessary" is debatable (by many, not least of whom is [redacted] -- [redacted] ) -- and especially so for the part of our house in question, which has a flat roof. But again, focusing on a minimal approach to removing ice dams does not address our complaint. We were not satisfied with the work done by his team, how it was completed, nor the amount of money charged given the results obtained. Nothing in the response from Mr. Raboin indicates any interest in addressing any of these concerns. We do not feel that this business has made a good faith effort to address our concerns, and it is wholly undeserving of its current high rating at the Revdex.com.

Following the last response, Raboin returned to the [redacted] property, where upon inspection it was determined that this on-going dispute was the result of a mere water stain that had persisted and NOT in fact a leak, therefore there was no roofing problem for the company to address – We parted with the [redacted] family on good terms and they were satisfied that there was no leak after our first completed job.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below. 
I previously filed the following complaint for the wrong business under complaint #[redacted]. When I closed that complaint, our complaint to this company, which is the company that we dealt with, also was closed in error. We have not reached satisfactory resolution of this issue with this company. We did receive a call from [redacted] Raboin today who requested photos of the work. We are collecting the photos to send to him. Original complaint: Our duplex (which is arranged as a condo) had some leaks from ice dams in the gutters. We contacted several roofers in the area. [redacted] Raboin said he would come the next day, which was important because of the amount of leaking. First, he did not come until the next day. Second, his team spent just on hour removing snow from the roof. We explained that they had agreed to work on both sides of the house, so they went back up for another hour. They removed only a portion of the snow from the roof and a portion of ice from the gutters, but not enough to remove the ice dams and fix the leaking. Third, they estimated $1200 for the job but charged $2500 for two hours of work that did not solve the problem. We called for them to come back but never heard from them. We had to hire a second roofer. This roofer spent three hours, got all the ice out of the gutters, and we haven't had a leak since. He charged $600. I have called Raboin several times and haven't received a call back. We have photos of how much ice and snow they left on the roof. We would like $1900 refunded as their work did not fix the problem and we had to hire other roofers to fix it.
Regards,
[redacted]