Response to Revdex.com complaint #[redacted]Dear Recipient,This letter is a response to the above listed complaint. We were not hired to frame a house. We were hired to re-roof a house that had two ridges in back of house with buckled shingles therefore what appeared to be loose and/or broken hip-jack rafters. The hip rafter appeared to be elevated above the slope and when multiple layers of shingles (including wooden shakes) were removed, there was no unevenness/buckling that was present before layers were removed, it was determined that there was not a problem that we thought so none of the framing allowance was needed. Ms. [redacted] was only told that I would get back to her if we had to use any of the 2480.00 allowance and the framing mentioned as an option on our estimate was not needed…she wasn’t told that any framing had been performed and an invoice for only the work performed on the estimate was the only one sent. After tear-off, it was discovered that the hip-jack rafterswere securely fastened to the hip rafter and none were broken so we proceeded to deck (after we received an approval to deck) and re-roof the house. Ourcontract had an allowance to correct a slope at back ridge but the slope did not need correcting. Our contract does not say that we will re-frame a house tobring it up to code. Our contract specifically excluded any permitting requirements. We roofed a house that did not have any inspector report that stated that the structure was unsound, and if it was dangerous, we would have stopped work.After we finished the work, we scheduled an inspection and I met with her and her construction superintendent. He made the comment that we did good work.In addition to the above complaints, the realtor that recommended us for this project told me that [redacted] offered to pay the balance right after completion if we discounted our balance by $300.00.[redacted] sent me a signed Settlement Agreement (this was somewhere in the summer of 2013) stating that she would not go online and write negative reviews or report us to the Revdex.com if we just wiped her balance clean.[redacted] then resurfaced again months later in the form of a letter stating that she wanted to rescind her Settlement Agreement and wanted money from us for different things that were not "done correctly on her roof". (This was approximately October of 2013) I made an offer to takecare of any deficiencies in our workmanship and never got a response to my offer.She then resurfaced months later demanding that I pay her a sum ofmoney and attorney fees and I again made the offer to redo any substandard roofwork and never received an approval for my offer.This latest resurfacing (with the Revdex.com complaint) is the last in this series of on-again-off-again demands and threats.In conclusion, we reroofed the house as specified in the contract. Our work was inspected and approved by her own construction superintendent. We have offered on more than one occasion to cure any deficiencies in workmanship. We did everything that we promised to do, and I am sorry that Ms. [redacted] thinks she needs to continue to pursue this matter.[redacted] Pansano[redacted] Painting & Roofing
Complaint: 10828597I am rejecting this response because:1) [redacted] Pansano is attempting to claim that the framing was only an "option" in the contract. This is incorrect. The framing work in the contract was mandatory. The contract states the following: "Carpentry-framing. Two ridges on back of house have need to have framing re-done to correct slopes. We cannot re-roof this dwelling in its current condition without this framing work. $2,480.00" (See previously attached Contract.) 2) Pansano stated that the framing work was not necessary because the “hip-jack rafters” were intact. The hip rafters and jack rafters frame the hip, not the ridge. Pansano fails to address the condition of the two ridges that were supposed to be framed per the contract. (See attached 1603 E 13th Street Overheard view of roof structure.) One of these two ridges had a dip in the center that was several inches below the slope of the remainder of the ridge. This dipped slope was caused by the lack of framing support (see previously attached picture of interior roof framing). This lack of support put excessive weight on the exterior walls of the structure, causing the walls to visibly lean outwards (See previously attached picture of exterior wall lean.) Proper support framing was required to correct the slope on the two ridges. Pansano failed to complete the required framing and improperly reroofed the structure in its current condition.3) Pansano claims he "received approval to deck." This is false. No approval to deck was ever requested or provided.4) Pansano claimed that a “superintendent” "inspected and approved" his work. This is false. There were never any superintendents, project managers, or any other individuals with authority on the project other than myself. I was the general contractor and I personally hired and managed all subcontractors. The only individuals who were involved in the inspection of Pansano’s work were [redacted] Pansano and myself. [redacted] Pansano seemed to have a difficult time accepting that a female could be the general contractor of a construction site. Pansano made the following statement to me during our inspection of his work, "I'm not used to dealing with women in business. I'm used to dealing with women in more friendly situations." At the end of the inspection, Pansano agreed to have his crew return to fix some of the problems I pointed out with his work. His crew failed to arrive on the agreed upon date and never returned to fix the work.5) Pansano claims that I told my Realtor that I would pay the remaining balance if he discounted the price $300. This is false. Several days after the inspection referenced above, I received a call from Kathleen Latto-Wainwright, my Realtor. She said that Pansano asked her to contact me to see if I would pay Pansano a discounted amount in exchange for releasing Pansano from the contract. I told her I thought something sketchy was going on and I refused the offer.6) I eventually sent a settlement offer to Pansano when I thought the roof could be salvaged. This offer was legally revoked when I found out that the entire roof had to be redone. (See attached invoice from reroof.)7) The Statute of Limitations for breach of contract in Texas is four years. This cause of action can legally be brought to court until 2017.8) Pansano states that he "offered on more than one occasion to cure any deficiencies in workmanship." This is incorrect. Pansano only made one offer and it was follows: "Mr. Pansano is willing to redo the roof according to the specifications listing in your Revocation in return for the balance due under your initial agreement." (See attached Pansano [redacted] response.) This offer was refused because the balance due under the initial agreement included $2,480.00 for framing work that Pansano did not complete. No other offers were ever received.9) Pansano materially breached the contract and this breach caused me significant financial damages. Pansano failed to perform the work in a "workmanlike manner according to standard practices," as required by the contract. The deficiencies include, but are not limited to, gross negligence by knowingly reroofing an unsound structure, decking improperly attached to the structure, new decking improperly double-stacked in several places on top of old decking, the incorrect type of flashing and underlayment on the shallow pitch in violation of ICC R905.2.7 Underlayment application.Regards, [redacted]
Response to Revdex.com complaint #[redacted]Dear Recipient,This letter is a response to the above listed complaint. We were not hired to frame a house. We were hired to re-roof a house that had two ridges in back of house with buckled shingles therefore what appeared to be loose and/or broken hip-jack rafters. The hip rafter appeared to be elevated above the slope and when multiple layers of shingles (including wooden shakes) were removed, there was no unevenness/buckling that was present before layers were removed, it was determined that there was not a problem that we thought so none of the framing allowance was needed. Ms. [redacted] was only told that I would get back to her if we had to use any of the 2480.00 allowance and the framing mentioned as an option on our estimate was not needed…she wasn’t told that any framing had been performed and an invoice for only the work performed on the estimate was the only one sent. After tear-off, it was discovered that the hip-jack rafterswere securely fastened to the hip rafter and none were broken so we proceeded to deck (after we received an approval to deck) and re-roof the house. Ourcontract had an allowance to correct a slope at back ridge but the slope did not need correcting. Our contract does not say that we will re-frame a house tobring it up to code. Our contract specifically excluded any permitting requirements. We roofed a house that did not have any inspector report that stated that the structure was unsound, and if it was dangerous, we would have stopped work.After we finished the work, we scheduled an inspection and I met with her and her construction superintendent. He made the comment that we did good work.In addition to the above complaints, the realtor that recommended us for this project told me that [redacted] offered to pay the balance right after completion if we discounted our balance by $300.00.[redacted] sent me a signed Settlement Agreement (this was somewhere in the summer of 2013) stating that she would not go online and write negative reviews or report us to the Revdex.com if we just wiped her balance clean.[redacted] then resurfaced again months later in the form of a letter stating that she wanted to rescind her Settlement Agreement and wanted money from us for different things that were not "done correctly on her roof". (This was approximately October of 2013) I made an offer to takecare of any deficiencies in our workmanship and never got a response to my offer.She then resurfaced months later demanding that I pay her a sum ofmoney and attorney fees and I again made the offer to redo any substandard roofwork and never received an approval for my offer.This latest resurfacing (with the Revdex.com complaint) is the last in this series of on-again-off-again demands and threats.In conclusion, we reroofed the house as specified in the contract. Our work was inspected and approved by her own construction superintendent. We have offered on more than one occasion to cure any deficiencies in workmanship. We did everything that we promised to do, and I am sorry that Ms. [redacted] thinks she needs to continue to pursue this matter.[redacted] Pansano[redacted] Painting & Roofing
Complaint: 10828597I am rejecting this response because:1) [redacted] Pansano is attempting to claim that the framing was only an "option" in the contract. This is incorrect. The framing work in the contract was mandatory. The contract states the following: "Carpentry-framing. Two ridges on back of house have need to have framing re-done to correct slopes. We cannot re-roof this dwelling in its current condition without this framing work. $2,480.00" (See previously attached Contract.) 2) Pansano stated that the framing work was not necessary because the “hip-jack rafters” were intact. The hip rafters and jack rafters frame the hip, not the ridge. Pansano fails to address the condition of the two ridges that were supposed to be framed per the contract. (See attached 1603 E 13th Street Overheard view of roof structure.) One of these two ridges had a dip in the center that was several inches below the slope of the remainder of the ridge. This dipped slope was caused by the lack of framing support (see previously attached picture of interior roof framing). This lack of support put excessive weight on the exterior walls of the structure, causing the walls to visibly lean outwards (See previously attached picture of exterior wall lean.) Proper support framing was required to correct the slope on the two ridges. Pansano failed to complete the required framing and improperly reroofed the structure in its current condition.3) Pansano claims he "received approval to deck." This is false. No approval to deck was ever requested or provided.4) Pansano claimed that a “superintendent” "inspected and approved" his work. This is false. There were never any superintendents, project managers, or any other individuals with authority on the project other than myself. I was the general contractor and I personally hired and managed all subcontractors. The only individuals who were involved in the inspection of Pansano’s work were [redacted] Pansano and myself. [redacted] Pansano seemed to have a difficult time accepting that a female could be the general contractor of a construction site. Pansano made the following statement to me during our inspection of his work, "I'm not used to dealing with women in business. I'm used to dealing with women in more friendly situations." At the end of the inspection, Pansano agreed to have his crew return to fix some of the problems I pointed out with his work. His crew failed to arrive on the agreed upon date and never returned to fix the work.5) Pansano claims that I told my Realtor that I would pay the remaining balance if he discounted the price $300. This is false. Several days after the inspection referenced above, I received a call from Kathleen Latto-Wainwright, my Realtor. She said that Pansano asked her to contact me to see if I would pay Pansano a discounted amount in exchange for releasing Pansano from the contract. I told her I thought something sketchy was going on and I refused the offer.6) I eventually sent a settlement offer to Pansano when I thought the roof could be salvaged. This offer was legally revoked when I found out that the entire roof had to be redone. (See attached invoice from reroof.)7) The Statute of Limitations for breach of contract in Texas is four years. This cause of action can legally be brought to court until 2017.8) Pansano states that he "offered on more than one occasion to cure any deficiencies in workmanship." This is incorrect. Pansano only made one offer and it was follows: "Mr. Pansano is willing to redo the roof according to the specifications listing in your Revocation in return for the balance due under your initial agreement." (See attached Pansano [redacted] response.) This offer was refused because the balance due under the initial agreement included $2,480.00 for framing work that Pansano did not complete. No other offers were ever received.9) Pansano materially breached the contract and this breach caused me significant financial damages. Pansano failed to perform the work in a "workmanlike manner according to standard practices," as required by the contract. The deficiencies include, but are not limited to, gross negligence by knowingly reroofing an unsound structure, decking improperly attached to the structure, new decking improperly double-stacked in several places on top of old decking, the incorrect type of flashing and underlayment on the shallow pitch in violation of ICC R905.2.7 Underlayment application.Regards, [redacted]