Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
It is stated in the contract that " Brad Smith Roofing will provide temporary covering of roof and wall areas open until signed approvals and required deposits are received." This was not the case, the work of the siding tear off of the siding was completed BEFORE a contract for the additional work was signedI am not disputing the quality or work of the roof, and we will pay the remaining balance once the siding situation is completedIt was my mistake in the original complaint filed that the price quotes were not exactly as Brad Smith Co had quoted us, but the amounts that they stated are correct ( $to re install the old aluminum, and $2,to install new vinyl siding)While I do understand the need for proper flashing installation, it is not clear the need for ALL of the siding to be removed, and not just the bottom portion where the flashings are to be installedWe did wait days to file a complaint because I needed to get quotes to have the siding installed and getting the house covered was my first priority.The resolution that I am seeking is for Brad Smith Roofing Co to drop the additional work order balance of $2,190, as again I did not sign a contract to authorized this extra work.
Regards,
*** ***
It
is impossible to remove only the bottom of the siding in order to properly
flash the walls In this case, the customer has aluminum siding panels
that are seamless on the the sides of the dormer As far as the head
walls, aluminum siding has to be taken off from the top down, it is unlike
vinyl siding in the way it locks together You cannot separate a panel in
the middle or bottom of a wall without cutting the aluminum and ruining the
panel Also, there were aluminum corner posts on each corner of the
dormer walls that each panel was nailed into and it is impossible to get the
corner posts off without taking off every panel from the top of the walls down
to the bottom in that order Also, the wood was rotted behind the
aluminum at the top of the wall, shown in the photos So the customer had
issues with the siding at both the top and the bottom of the walls The
customer is asking for a shortcut that is impossible from an engineering
standpoint just to cut cost
The original contract specifies time and material additional
costs, if neededThe original contract when signed is authorizing us to do the
work performed if necessary, again we stand by the fact that the time and
material work was needed, and the customer agreedAgain, we would never cover
up a situation and not inform the customerWe notified the customer of the
situation, he understood and had a chance to see the work being done after he
would have arrived home to see just the part of the work done at the end of the
1st day
Again it is the cost in dispute and we feel the time and
material additional costs are fair and honest, as described in our original
contractThis is why we explain in detail of the “Unknown Conditions” that may
arise when explaining our contract with a potential customer
We do not believe it is fair to refund the entire $2,
and again the customer has still not paid the $4,balance due for the
roof work regardless of this time and material balance dueThis amount is due
upon completion
In an effort to show good faith to the customer that we want
to work with him to get this resolved, and since the cost is the real dispute, at
this point we are wiling to offer to the customer a fair and good faith
discountWe will discount the total man hours by hours of the man hours
performed, which equals a discount of $or 15% discount on labor for the
extra man hours only
$4,roof balance
$2,time and material balance
($195.00) 15% discount on labor for the extra man
hours only
$6,Total Due
If Mr*** chooses not to accept this offer to resolve
this dispute over final cost of the time and material additional work, Brad
Smith Roofing Co., Increserves the right to withdraw this offer of the
$discount at any time
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. They have always done excellent work for me; however, I thought that my work was not being fairly scheduled and, in view of the amount of the deposit, it made me quite angry. I tried to work with the Schedulers but had the impression that my work was not being placed in line. Naturally, I much prefer to work with Chris and Dave, the crew assigned to my work, and if we can get this work done, I'd rather continue on with them.The crew's work so far has stopped the leaking.Subject to the above, this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Mr. [redacted],
I would first like to thank you for the 7 repairs we have completed for you on your home since
2010 that total $29,563.04. That is a lot of work and I thank you very much for your repeat
business.
As you know from watching us do that amount of work over a 6 year period of time, we are
about quality work and ensuring we solve our clients’ problems. I assume we have solved all of
your issues successfully in the past being that this contract in dispute is the third service we have
contracted with you this year of 2016. Due to the fact that we have been in business for 37 years
and have a great reputation for quality, we do have many jobs going on at one time due to word
of mouth. We are strategizing every day of how to dispatch our limited qualified labor force that
is capable to perform this type of roof repair, working around the weather, fixing underlying rot
issues on other projects (as we have experienced on your house in the past) that pushes our
schedule back and many other factors that can delay us starting and completing a project. I can
assure you that in no way would we ever contract a project for any client, let alone a long
standing repeat client, and then project a feeling as if we do not want the work. Our foreman
Chris, who you have met onsite, is 44 years old and has been working for our company for 25
years. He is our best roofing service repair expert. If he goes to a jobsite and the conditions on a
steep 2 story roof that happens to be tile are such that he cannot complete the job safely, we have
to trust him. If not for the sake of safety, he has definitely earned our benefit of the doubt as to
judge a situation correctly and make the call.
The contract was signed in Mid-October during the busiest time of the year, from one of the
more reputable companies in Cleveland that you have spent almost $30k with over the last 6
years and at the time of the year where we experience the most inconsistent weather. Our
records show that we have spent a little over 1 ½ days onsite removing tile and waterproofing the
areas in which you have your issues over roughly 600 square feet of roof. I assume this has
resolved your leaking before the bad weather has arrived. We will continue to schedule the job
to be completed as the weather allows, but if you can keep in mind that a day that might be dry to
you, to us there could be a 50% chance of rain or snow and high winds. Those are not conditions
we would send a crew out just to have them come back to our facility an hour later because we
cannot work or they do start the repairs and then it rains on them half way through and we then
create a larger issue due to rain getting in your house and ruining your home.
Scheduling is not an exact science, we are dealing with mother nature and human nature to do a
very delicate and difficult job that has huge liability factors both from safety and preserving your
home from water damage.
I apologize for the various delays. I apologize that you felt the need to file a Revdex.com complaint for
something that was not workmanship related and we could have talked about together. I hope
that you can accept my apologies and we can continue to have a good working relationship for
future projects on your home. As far as holding your deposit money, we do not need a deposit
from you for future repairs. The longstanding repeat client that you are, we would not require it,
however, I understand why our sales rep contracted for deposits because that is the normal
protocol. We have spent enough time and material out at your house on this contract so far to
expend over half of what you have given us. In the future we will not require one until a
significant amount of work has been completed.
As always, you are in control if you want us to finish the job. We will respect your decision
either way.
Thank you again and best regards,
Drew S[redacted]
Vice-President
Brad Smith Roofing Co., Inc.
Business responded to complaint. See attached.Business response also copied and pasted below by Revdex.com staff 11/3/15.Customer Information: [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] November 2, 2015 In response to the Customer's...
Statement of the Problem, we would like to response to each statement within the complaint, and show documents and photos within separate attachments to follow up on our responses to each statement from the Customer. Customer: "We hired Brad Smith Roofing to put a new roof on our house." Our Response: The Customer signed and initialed a 10 Page Contract packet containing three different areas that disclose additional work may be necessary, two areas specifically describe the possible need for siding removal, waterproofing and siding re-installation at an additional rate of 565.00 per man-hour port to port plus materials +10%, along with the possible reasons for the siding removal, These areas we have highlighted in the separate attachments. The Customer did not sign these documents the first day we met. Our first appointment was on 7/11/15, our second meeting to discuss the proposal was on 7/18/15 and the Customer signed the contract on our third meeting on 8/28/15. The Customer had over a month to review our contracts and most likely received competing estimates from other companies and chose us to do the job, chose the highest offered price estimated number on the 4'1' page of our contract which is the manufacturer backed "Golden Pledge Warranty" from GAF where GAF does a 40 Point On-Site inspection of our companies workmanship and issues a 25 year 100% Non-Prorated Workmanship and 50 Year Material Warranty, and The Customer signed all of our documents and disclosures and did not raise any issues about what was in our disclosures. Customer: "On the first day of the job, I was told that some siding would need to be taken off to properly install the flashings." Our Response: The Customer is correct, we called him because he was not On-Site, the Customer was at work. We had a conversation about the siding issues and that there was not one, but two layers of siding on the wall and the aluminum siding was installed over the original wood lap siding and when the second layer of shingles were installed, that contractor did not install a second layer of wall flashings because it would have been impossible to install a layer of wall flashing underneath the nailed in 1-Channel of the aluminum siding, so they just butted the shingles to the aluminum siding and relied on the original layer of wall flashings to prevent leaking. When you have this condition when tearing off Two layers of shingles and go down to the wood substrate, now the old original wall flashings do not extend far enough out from the sub wall behind the original wood lap siding and past the aluminum siding in order to be able to re-use the original wall flashings to meet Ohio Residential Building Code Requirements. Even if the old original wall flashings did extend out past the aluminum siding far enough to re-use with the new p.2shingles, they are the original wall fleshings the home was built at least 40-50 years prior or more and they were in very Poor Condition and we as a company and GAF as a manufacturer would not want to accept and warrant that condition as apart of our new roof system and The Customer agreed with our company on that phone conversation. Customer: "I was told that I would have a quote for the work to me by noon." Our Response: The Customer was told in that phone conversation that the removal of both layers of siding and the subsequent Ice and Water Shield Membrane waterproofing work falls into our "Time and Material" rates listed on our contract and we did not know what that would be until that part of the additional work was completed. The Customer %vas told that our recommendation would be that instead of installing the Existing Aluminum siding back up after we waterproof both dormers, installing new vinyl siding would be a better long term benefit for him because it would create less maintenance for him in the future with not having to paint the old aluminum siding and since we have to remove and re-install the siding anyways, it wouldn't he that much more of a cost to install vinyl siding. We offered to price out both the New Vinyl Siding installation and price out re-installing the old aluminum back onto the house in order to give him options on what he wanted to do. it would have been impossible to give him a price on the additional work by noon of the first day of work because we only removed the two layers of siding on the back of the house the first day and waterproofed, then the second day of work we removed the front dormer two layers of siding and waterproofed. Customer: "We did not receive the quote until the evening of the following business dim alter all of the extra work was done." Our Response: The Customer is correct that he did not receive a quote" until the evening of the following business day. The Customer was told in the initial conversation that the removal was to be "Time and Material" and that we would not have a price for that until it was completed and that he would have a "quote" for the aluminum re-installation to compare to installing new Vinyl siding thereafter. Ile agreed that the condition existed and he wanted to do this detail of the job correctly in order to maintain a warranty from us and the manufacturer. The two layers of aluminum and wood lap removal on both dormers was very time consuming, which is why it wasn't complete 100% in the first day. We issued an additional work order to the Customer after the second day and the "Time and Material" work finally was completed as far as the removal and waterproofing, along with a "quote" with options to install new Vinyl or go back with the existing aluminum, as we told him originally in that phone conversation the first day. The Customer came home the first night after the first day of work and had to see that we removed the siding and waterproofed only half of the house. We started the job on 10-7-15 and didn't finish until 10-9-15. Customer: "The extra work included the tear off of approx. 1,000 square feet of siding on the house," Our Response: The Customer is correct, it did include approx. 1,000 square feet of aluminum siding tear off on the house, however, it also included approx. 1,000 square feet of old original wood lap siding (total of 2,000 square feet of siding removal) and rotted out old original rake edge and gutter edge fascia boards on both dormers and replacing them with new wood gutter edge and rake edge 2x fascia trim. See photos attached. We as a company have a policy that we don't cover up rotted wood. The Customer was told this and signed our documents disclosing this. We then installed an Ice and Water Shield Membrane waterproofing over all exposed wood sub walls on both dormers, as the Customer was told would happen on the first day conversation. Customer: "We did not authorize this tear off, as we did not receive the price quote." p.3Our Response: Again, the Customer was told the tear off was "Time and Material" according to our contract that he signed. The Customer was told that the "Price Quote" would be for the two separate options of either re-installing the aluminum siding or installing new vinyl. This is why the old original aluminum siding is shrink wrapped up arid labeled on each panel of how is goes back on so in the event the Customer chose to put the old aluminum back on, it could be done. We cannot give a price for the "Time and Material" until it is complete. The Customer agreed on the phone to remove and waterproof because he was not onsite and was at work. We did not complete the tear off of all the siding and waterproofing the first day. The Customer knew this. Customer: "We were then told by the company that the cost of the tear off was $2,000." Our Response: As stated above, we mailed the Customer the final "Time and Material" Charges, see Additional Work Order dated 10-8-15, which included new 2x fascia rake and gutter edge trim to replace what was rotted, see photos attached, and included roughly 40 feet of lx decking that was rotted and missing at the bottom of the two valleys where the back of the house main and the rear porch connect. In this Additional Work Order, we quoted the two options of re-installing the old aluminum siding or installing new vinyl as we talked about in the first day conversation about what would go back up. Customer: "They left all the siding off the house in an unusable condition, and stated that it would cost $2,000 to put the aluminum siding back up, or $3,000 for them to install new vinyl siding." Our Response First, the aluminum siding is not in an "unusable condition", it is wrapped and saved ready to be re-installed if that is what the Customer wants to do. Again, our quote separates the re-install of the old versus install of new, as we told the Customer we would do in the first day conversation that he agreed he wanted. The numbers being used by the Customer are inaccurate. Sec Additional Work Order sent to the Customer. $2,050.00 to re-install the old aluminum versus $2,900 to install new vinyl. t'i'c have been waiting for the Customer to respond to us on what he would like us to do since we completed the job on 10-9-15. Ile told us that he wanted to do some "research" over the weekend following the last day of work and would get back to us, he stated in an email correspondence to our company the night of 10-8-15. The Customer has not responded to several attempts to contact following the installation of the roof regarding what the Customer has decided on about the siding re-installation. The Customer B1313 complaint was filed on 10-27-15, exactly 18 days after final day of work. Customer: "They left a large pile of siding and gutters in our back yard, and our house did not have siding on it when they were done with the job." Our Response: Yes, of course the house did not have siding on it when we were done. In the phone conversation that the Customer and our company had. we agreed that the siding needed to be removed in order to process and flash the roof correctly. As the Customer has stated in this complaint and in emails he acknowledges having this conversation and that he knew the siding was going to be removed and the wall waterproofed. Sec email from customer dated 10-8-15. The job was completed as far as it could be without further approval front the customer on what he wanted to install on his home as far as the siding, as we agreed upon. We left his walls of the dormers 100% waterproofed with l hell Tack Ice and Water Shield that is good to be exposed to the weather for 6 months to ensure there is no possibility of leaking. Customer: "We had several roofing contractors and siding contractors come out to evaluate the situation, all of which said that the tear off of all that siding was completely unnecessary" Our Response: The Customer is not staling who these "Contractors" are or their credentials. These "Contractors" were not on site during the roof tear off and have not seen the photos taken during the tear off process. These "Contractors" are not liable for this project in any way or for any future warranties p.4issued. These "Contractors" are not under contract with the Customer. These "Contractors" allegedly offered "free opinions" on the situation based on what is now a 100% watcrprookd sub wall area of two second story dormers. These "Contractors" most likely don't know that there was two layers of siding on this these dormers which could not be seen until the time of the roof removal because of the sequence of how the siding and two layers of roofing where built. These "Contractors" don't know that there was rotted wood underneath the aluminum siding system at the top that needed to he replaced. Brad Smith Roofing would be willing to pay a third party Engineering firm at the choosing of the Customer to investigate the issues we discovered during the tear off process and render an educated and credible account of how any contractor should have properly installed this roof system. Brad Smith Roofing is willing to have GAF, the manufacturer of the shingles installed and the company that is issuing a 100% Workmanship and Material warranty on the roof installed on the Customer's home, render a educated and credible account of how the roof flashings are to be installed. See attached diagram from GAF on proper roof wall flashings. Customer: "In short, they completed work without our permission and without giving us a quote. and they are now trying to charge us for the cost of the extra work." Our Response: Sec our companies' responses to the previous statements. The Customer knew the siding was coming off and being waterproofed and knew it was on a "Time and Material" basis and once complete, we would notify the Customer of the charges and two separate options of re-installing aluminum or installing new vinyl or hire a different contractor to re-install either. The Customer acknowledges that he knew this was the case and states in the attached October 8th email lie sent to our company that he was "surprised at the price" not surprised at what needed to be done. He states that he thought it sounded like "not a big deal" when the phone conversation the First day was over. Again, it is impossible to give a price on -Time and !Material" work until it is finished, which is stated in our contract that the Customer signed. Customer: "They forced us into spending thousands more dollars on a project that we did not authorize or sign a contract for." Our Response: Our Company was contracted to perform the roof system according to State Requirements and it is inspected by the City of Independence and GAF the manufacturer. We have given the Customer two options to handle the siding re-install, or make other arrangements to re-install siding. The Contract that the Customer signed states to replace the shingle tin wall flashing. The Contract that the Customer signed also states in multiple places that if the wall flashing cannot be removed or replaced without removing siding, that this work will be done on a "Time and Material" basis. The Customer acknowledges in writing via email that he knew the work needed to be done, but was "shocked" at the final account of the "Time and Material" charges. '[his complaint is not workmanship related in any way. The Customer is not complaining about the overall quality of the work, just that the Customer's opinion, now after the fact, is that it did not need to be done. The Customer knew that it needed to be done via phone conversation the first day and authorized it to he done by signing our original contracts. Brad Smith Roofing's position is that the customer has a complaint about the dollar amount or the work that was required, not that the work was required. The Customer had ample time to research companies to hire to replace the roof and review the roof contract language from each company before choosing his contractor. Now after the fact, the Customer has these alleged "opinions" from other unknown "Contractors", uneducated of the actual job details our company discovered, and with no known credibility, in order to leverage a reduction on out of pocket cost of the overall project being performed to proper Code Standards. The Customer did not hire these "Contractors" to do the job and they have no liability for their unwritten statements. p.5Brad Smith Roofing is more than willing to get educated, credible engineering firms to make written statements about the proper way to flash a wall and what was required to be done on this Customer's home in order to meet Ohio Residential Building Code and Manufacturers' Specifications that would be warranted. The Customer was given this full description in an email back to him on October 9th, at 12:1 lam. See attached email. The Customer has waited until 18 days to file a complaint. We have emailed the client approximately 4 times since our October 9th email with no response to the siding being re-install or new being installed. Desired Settlement: Brad Smith Roofing receive the balance the Customer has been billed, which is the balance of the original contract amount plus $2,190.00 of siding removal, waterproofing and rot replacement that was necessary to perform the roof system to the law. Brad Smith Roofing does not require the Customer to approve our company to re-install any siding, however, we cannot guarantee the siding installation if our company does not perform the work. We only guarantee the work that we do as apart of the roof system. Note: The Customer has not, as of today's date 11-2-15, paid the balance of the original contract of $4,990.00 which was due upon completion and has nothing to do with the Additional Work. The $2,190.00 is the Additional Work performed so far. The Customer does not have a filed complaint about the Original Contract work completed. Attached are all of the Emails, Photos, Codes, GAF Diagram and Signed Contract between the Customer and our company.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
It is stated in the contract that " Brad Smith Roofing will provide temporary covering of roof and wall areas open until signed approvals and required deposits are received." This was not the case, the work of the siding tear off of the siding was completed BEFORE a contract for the additional work was signedI am not disputing the quality or work of the roof, and we will pay the remaining balance once the siding situation is completedIt was my mistake in the original complaint filed that the price quotes were not exactly as Brad Smith Co had quoted us, but the amounts that they stated are correct ( $to re install the old aluminum, and $2,to install new vinyl siding)While I do understand the need for proper flashing installation, it is not clear the need for ALL of the siding to be removed, and not just the bottom portion where the flashings are to be installedWe did wait days to file a complaint because I needed to get quotes to have the siding installed and getting the house covered was my first priority.The resolution that I am seeking is for Brad Smith Roofing Co to drop the additional work order balance of $2,190, as again I did not sign a contract to authorized this extra work.
Regards,
*** ***
It
is impossible to remove only the bottom of the siding in order to properly
flash the walls In this case, the customer has aluminum siding panels
that are seamless on the the sides of the dormer As far as the head
walls, aluminum siding has to be taken off from the top down, it is unlike
vinyl siding in the way it locks together You cannot separate a panel in
the middle or bottom of a wall without cutting the aluminum and ruining the
panel Also, there were aluminum corner posts on each corner of the
dormer walls that each panel was nailed into and it is impossible to get the
corner posts off without taking off every panel from the top of the walls down
to the bottom in that order Also, the wood was rotted behind the
aluminum at the top of the wall, shown in the photos So the customer had
issues with the siding at both the top and the bottom of the walls The
customer is asking for a shortcut that is impossible from an engineering
standpoint just to cut cost
The original contract specifies time and material additional
costs, if neededThe original contract when signed is authorizing us to do the
work performed if necessary, again we stand by the fact that the time and
material work was needed, and the customer agreedAgain, we would never cover
up a situation and not inform the customerWe notified the customer of the
situation, he understood and had a chance to see the work being done after he
would have arrived home to see just the part of the work done at the end of the
1st day
Again it is the cost in dispute and we feel the time and
material additional costs are fair and honest, as described in our original
contractThis is why we explain in detail of the “Unknown Conditions” that may
arise when explaining our contract with a potential customer
We do not believe it is fair to refund the entire $2,
and again the customer has still not paid the $4,balance due for the
roof work regardless of this time and material balance dueThis amount is due
upon completion
In an effort to show good faith to the customer that we want
to work with him to get this resolved, and since the cost is the real dispute, at
this point we are wiling to offer to the customer a fair and good faith
discountWe will discount the total man hours by hours of the man hours
performed, which equals a discount of $or 15% discount on labor for the
extra man hours only
$4,roof balance
$2,time and material balance
($195.00) 15% discount on labor for the extra man
hours only
$6,Total Due
If Mr*** chooses not to accept this offer to resolve
this dispute over final cost of the time and material additional work, Brad
Smith Roofing Co., Increserves the right to withdraw this offer of the
$discount at any time
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. They have always done excellent work for me; however, I thought that my work was not being fairly scheduled and, in view of the amount of the deposit, it made me quite angry. I tried to work with the Schedulers but had the impression that my work was not being placed in line. Naturally, I much prefer to work with Chris and Dave, the crew assigned to my work, and if we can get this work done, I'd rather continue on with them.The crew's work so far has stopped the leaking.Subject to the above, this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]...
...⇄ /> [redacted]
[redacted]
Mr. [redacted],
I would first like to thank you for the 7 repairs we have completed for you on your home since
2010 that total $29,563.04. That is a lot of work and I thank you very much for your repeat
business.
As you know from watching us do that amount of work over a 6 year period of time, we are
about quality work and ensuring we solve our clients’ problems. I assume we have solved all of
your issues successfully in the past being that this contract in dispute is the third service we have
contracted with you this year of 2016. Due to the fact that we have been in business for 37 years
and have a great reputation for quality, we do have many jobs going on at one time due to word
of mouth. We are strategizing every day of how to dispatch our limited qualified labor force that
is capable to perform this type of roof repair, working around the weather, fixing underlying rot
issues on other projects (as we have experienced on your house in the past) that pushes our
schedule back and many other factors that can delay us starting and completing a project. I can
assure you that in no way would we ever contract a project for any client, let alone a long
standing repeat client, and then project a feeling as if we do not want the work. Our foreman
Chris, who you have met onsite, is 44 years old and has been working for our company for 25
years. He is our best roofing service repair expert. If he goes to a jobsite and the conditions on a
steep 2 story roof that happens to be tile are such that he cannot complete the job safely, we have
to trust him. If not for the sake of safety, he has definitely earned our benefit of the doubt as to
judge a situation correctly and make the call.
The contract was signed in Mid-October during the busiest time of the year, from one of the
more reputable companies in Cleveland that you have spent almost $30k with over the last 6
years and at the time of the year where we experience the most inconsistent weather. Our
records show that we have spent a little over 1 ½ days onsite removing tile and waterproofing the
areas in which you have your issues over roughly 600 square feet of roof. I assume this has
resolved your leaking before the bad weather has arrived. We will continue to schedule the job
to be completed as the weather allows, but if you can keep in mind that a day that might be dry to
you, to us there could be a 50% chance of rain or snow and high winds. Those are not conditions
we would send a crew out just to have them come back to our facility an hour later because we
cannot work or they do start the repairs and then it rains on them half way through and we then
create a larger issue due to rain getting in your house and ruining your home.
Scheduling is not an exact science, we are dealing with mother nature and human nature to do a
very delicate and difficult job that has huge liability factors both from safety and preserving your
home from water damage.
I apologize for the various delays. I apologize that you felt the need to file a Revdex.com complaint for
something that was not workmanship related and we could have talked about together. I hope
that you can accept my apologies and we can continue to have a good working relationship for
future projects on your home. As far as holding your deposit money, we do not need a deposit
from you for future repairs. The longstanding repeat client that you are, we would not require it,
however, I understand why our sales rep contracted for deposits because that is the normal
protocol. We have spent enough time and material out at your house on this contract so far to
expend over half of what you have given us. In the future we will not require one until a
significant amount of work has been completed.
As always, you are in control if you want us to finish the job. We will respect your decision
either way.
Thank you again and best regards,
Drew S[redacted]
Vice-President
Brad Smith Roofing Co., Inc.
Business responded to complaint. See attached.Business response also copied and pasted below by Revdex.com staff 11/3/15.Customer Information: [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] November 2, 2015 In response to the Customer's...
Statement of the Problem, we would like to response to each statement within the complaint, and show documents and photos within separate attachments to follow up on our responses to each statement from the Customer. Customer: "We hired Brad Smith Roofing to put a new roof on our house." Our Response: The Customer signed and initialed a 10 Page Contract packet containing three different areas that disclose additional work may be necessary, two areas specifically describe the possible need for siding removal, waterproofing and siding re-installation at an additional rate of 565.00 per man-hour port to port plus materials +10%, along with the possible reasons for the siding removal, These areas we have highlighted in the separate attachments. The Customer did not sign these documents the first day we met. Our first appointment was on 7/11/15, our second meeting to discuss the proposal was on 7/18/15 and the Customer signed the contract on our third meeting on 8/28/15. The Customer had over a month to review our contracts and most likely received competing estimates from other companies and chose us to do the job, chose the highest offered price estimated number on the 4'1' page of our contract which is the manufacturer backed "Golden Pledge Warranty" from GAF where GAF does a 40 Point On-Site inspection of our companies workmanship and issues a 25 year 100% Non-Prorated Workmanship and 50 Year Material Warranty, and The Customer signed all of our documents and disclosures and did not raise any issues about what was in our disclosures. Customer: "On the first day of the job, I was told that some siding would need to be taken off to properly install the flashings." Our Response: The Customer is correct, we called him because he was not On-Site, the Customer was at work. We had a conversation about the siding issues and that there was not one, but two layers of siding on the wall and the aluminum siding was installed over the original wood lap siding and when the second layer of shingles were installed, that contractor did not install a second layer of wall flashings because it would have been impossible to install a layer of wall flashing underneath the nailed in 1-Channel of the aluminum siding, so they just butted the shingles to the aluminum siding and relied on the original layer of wall flashings to prevent leaking. When you have this condition when tearing off Two layers of shingles and go down to the wood substrate, now the old original wall flashings do not extend far enough out from the sub wall behind the original wood lap siding and past the aluminum siding in order to be able to re-use the original wall flashings to meet Ohio Residential Building Code Requirements. Even if the old original wall flashings did extend out past the aluminum siding far enough to re-use with the new p.2shingles, they are the original wall fleshings the home was built at least 40-50 years prior or more and they were in very Poor Condition and we as a company and GAF as a manufacturer would not want to accept and warrant that condition as apart of our new roof system and The Customer agreed with our company on that phone conversation. Customer: "I was told that I would have a quote for the work to me by noon." Our Response: The Customer was told in that phone conversation that the removal of both layers of siding and the subsequent Ice and Water Shield Membrane waterproofing work falls into our "Time and Material" rates listed on our contract and we did not know what that would be until that part of the additional work was completed. The Customer %vas told that our recommendation would be that instead of installing the Existing Aluminum siding back up after we waterproof both dormers, installing new vinyl siding would be a better long term benefit for him because it would create less maintenance for him in the future with not having to paint the old aluminum siding and since we have to remove and re-install the siding anyways, it wouldn't he that much more of a cost to install vinyl siding. We offered to price out both the New Vinyl Siding installation and price out re-installing the old aluminum back onto the house in order to give him options on what he wanted to do. it would have been impossible to give him a price on the additional work by noon of the first day of work because we only removed the two layers of siding on the back of the house the first day and waterproofed, then the second day of work we removed the front dormer two layers of siding and waterproofed. Customer: "We did not receive the quote until the evening of the following business dim alter all of the extra work was done." Our Response: The Customer is correct that he did not receive a quote" until the evening of the following business day. The Customer was told in the initial conversation that the removal was to be "Time and Material" and that we would not have a price for that until it was completed and that he would have a "quote" for the aluminum re-installation to compare to installing new Vinyl siding thereafter. Ile agreed that the condition existed and he wanted to do this detail of the job correctly in order to maintain a warranty from us and the manufacturer. The two layers of aluminum and wood lap removal on both dormers was very time consuming, which is why it wasn't complete 100% in the first day. We issued an additional work order to the Customer after the second day and the "Time and Material" work finally was completed as far as the removal and waterproofing, along with a "quote" with options to install new Vinyl or go back with the existing aluminum, as we told him originally in that phone conversation the first day. The Customer came home the first night after the first day of work and had to see that we removed the siding and waterproofed only half of the house. We started the job on 10-7-15 and didn't finish until 10-9-15. Customer: "The extra work included the tear off of approx. 1,000 square feet of siding on the house," Our Response: The Customer is correct, it did include approx. 1,000 square feet of aluminum siding tear off on the house, however, it also included approx. 1,000 square feet of old original wood lap siding (total of 2,000 square feet of siding removal) and rotted out old original rake edge and gutter edge fascia boards on both dormers and replacing them with new wood gutter edge and rake edge 2x fascia trim. See photos attached. We as a company have a policy that we don't cover up rotted wood. The Customer was told this and signed our documents disclosing this. We then installed an Ice and Water Shield Membrane waterproofing over all exposed wood sub walls on both dormers, as the Customer was told would happen on the first day conversation. Customer: "We did not authorize this tear off, as we did not receive the price quote." p.3Our Response: Again, the Customer was told the tear off was "Time and Material" according to our contract that he signed. The Customer was told that the "Price Quote" would be for the two separate options of either re-installing the aluminum siding or installing new vinyl. This is why the old original aluminum siding is shrink wrapped up arid labeled on each panel of how is goes back on so in the event the Customer chose to put the old aluminum back on, it could be done. We cannot give a price for the "Time and Material" until it is complete. The Customer agreed on the phone to remove and waterproof because he was not onsite and was at work. We did not complete the tear off of all the siding and waterproofing the first day. The Customer knew this. Customer: "We were then told by the company that the cost of the tear off was $2,000." Our Response: As stated above, we mailed the Customer the final "Time and Material" Charges, see Additional Work Order dated 10-8-15, which included new 2x fascia rake and gutter edge trim to replace what was rotted, see photos attached, and included roughly 40 feet of lx decking that was rotted and missing at the bottom of the two valleys where the back of the house main and the rear porch connect. In this Additional Work Order, we quoted the two options of re-installing the old aluminum siding or installing new vinyl as we talked about in the first day conversation about what would go back up. Customer: "They left all the siding off the house in an unusable condition, and stated that it would cost $2,000 to put the aluminum siding back up, or $3,000 for them to install new vinyl siding." Our Response First, the aluminum siding is not in an "unusable condition", it is wrapped and saved ready to be re-installed if that is what the Customer wants to do. Again, our quote separates the re-install of the old versus install of new, as we told the Customer we would do in the first day conversation that he agreed he wanted. The numbers being used by the Customer are inaccurate. Sec Additional Work Order sent to the Customer. $2,050.00 to re-install the old aluminum versus $2,900 to install new vinyl. t'i'c have been waiting for the Customer to respond to us on what he would like us to do since we completed the job on 10-9-15. Ile told us that he wanted to do some "research" over the weekend following the last day of work and would get back to us, he stated in an email correspondence to our company the night of 10-8-15. The Customer has not responded to several attempts to contact following the installation of the roof regarding what the Customer has decided on about the siding re-installation. The Customer B1313 complaint was filed on 10-27-15, exactly 18 days after final day of work. Customer: "They left a large pile of siding and gutters in our back yard, and our house did not have siding on it when they were done with the job." Our Response: Yes, of course the house did not have siding on it when we were done. In the phone conversation that the Customer and our company had. we agreed that the siding needed to be removed in order to process and flash the roof correctly. As the Customer has stated in this complaint and in emails he acknowledges having this conversation and that he knew the siding was going to be removed and the wall waterproofed. Sec email from customer dated 10-8-15. The job was completed as far as it could be without further approval front the customer on what he wanted to install on his home as far as the siding, as we agreed upon. We left his walls of the dormers 100% waterproofed with l hell Tack Ice and Water Shield that is good to be exposed to the weather for 6 months to ensure there is no possibility of leaking. Customer: "We had several roofing contractors and siding contractors come out to evaluate the situation, all of which said that the tear off of all that siding was completely unnecessary" Our Response: The Customer is not staling who these "Contractors" are or their credentials. These "Contractors" were not on site during the roof tear off and have not seen the photos taken during the tear off process. These "Contractors" are not liable for this project in any way or for any future warranties p.4issued. These "Contractors" are not under contract with the Customer. These "Contractors" allegedly offered "free opinions" on the situation based on what is now a 100% watcrprookd sub wall area of two second story dormers. These "Contractors" most likely don't know that there was two layers of siding on this these dormers which could not be seen until the time of the roof removal because of the sequence of how the siding and two layers of roofing where built. These "Contractors" don't know that there was rotted wood underneath the aluminum siding system at the top that needed to he replaced. Brad Smith Roofing would be willing to pay a third party Engineering firm at the choosing of the Customer to investigate the issues we discovered during the tear off process and render an educated and credible account of how any contractor should have properly installed this roof system. Brad Smith Roofing is willing to have GAF, the manufacturer of the shingles installed and the company that is issuing a 100% Workmanship and Material warranty on the roof installed on the Customer's home, render a educated and credible account of how the roof flashings are to be installed. See attached diagram from GAF on proper roof wall flashings. Customer: "In short, they completed work without our permission and without giving us a quote. and they are now trying to charge us for the cost of the extra work." Our Response: Sec our companies' responses to the previous statements. The Customer knew the siding was coming off and being waterproofed and knew it was on a "Time and Material" basis and once complete, we would notify the Customer of the charges and two separate options of re-installing aluminum or installing new vinyl or hire a different contractor to re-install either. The Customer acknowledges that he knew this was the case and states in the attached October 8th email lie sent to our company that he was "surprised at the price" not surprised at what needed to be done. He states that he thought it sounded like "not a big deal" when the phone conversation the First day was over. Again, it is impossible to give a price on -Time and !Material" work until it is finished, which is stated in our contract that the Customer signed. Customer: "They forced us into spending thousands more dollars on a project that we did not authorize or sign a contract for." Our Response: Our Company was contracted to perform the roof system according to State Requirements and it is inspected by the City of Independence and GAF the manufacturer. We have given the Customer two options to handle the siding re-install, or make other arrangements to re-install siding. The Contract that the Customer signed states to replace the shingle tin wall flashing. The Contract that the Customer signed also states in multiple places that if the wall flashing cannot be removed or replaced without removing siding, that this work will be done on a "Time and Material" basis. The Customer acknowledges in writing via email that he knew the work needed to be done, but was "shocked" at the final account of the "Time and Material" charges. '[his complaint is not workmanship related in any way. The Customer is not complaining about the overall quality of the work, just that the Customer's opinion, now after the fact, is that it did not need to be done. The Customer knew that it needed to be done via phone conversation the first day and authorized it to he done by signing our original contracts. Brad Smith Roofing's position is that the customer has a complaint about the dollar amount or the work that was required, not that the work was required. The Customer had ample time to research companies to hire to replace the roof and review the roof contract language from each company before choosing his contractor. Now after the fact, the Customer has these alleged "opinions" from other unknown "Contractors", uneducated of the actual job details our company discovered, and with no known credibility, in order to leverage a reduction on out of pocket cost of the overall project being performed to proper Code Standards. The Customer did not hire these "Contractors" to do the job and they have no liability for their unwritten statements. p.5Brad Smith Roofing is more than willing to get educated, credible engineering firms to make written statements about the proper way to flash a wall and what was required to be done on this Customer's home in order to meet Ohio Residential Building Code and Manufacturers' Specifications that would be warranted. The Customer was given this full description in an email back to him on October 9th, at 12:1 lam. See attached email. The Customer has waited until 18 days to file a complaint. We have emailed the client approximately 4 times since our October 9th email with no response to the siding being re-install or new being installed. Desired Settlement: Brad Smith Roofing receive the balance the Customer has been billed, which is the balance of the original contract amount plus $2,190.00 of siding removal, waterproofing and rot replacement that was necessary to perform the roof system to the law. Brad Smith Roofing does not require the Customer to approve our company to re-install any siding, however, we cannot guarantee the siding installation if our company does not perform the work. We only guarantee the work that we do as apart of the roof system. Note: The Customer has not, as of today's date 11-2-15, paid the balance of the original contract of $4,990.00 which was due upon completion and has nothing to do with the Additional Work. The $2,190.00 is the Additional Work performed so far. The Customer does not have a filed complaint about the Original Contract work completed. Attached are all of the Emails, Photos, Codes, GAF Diagram and Signed Contract between the Customer and our company.