Tarrant County Roofing, LLC

Got a new roof in June, along with everyone else in town! Kelly J [redacted] , at Tarrant, was a pleasure to deal with! She was prompt, efficient, and very professionalThe job was done in a timely manner and no details were left untouchedIt was such a good experience that I recommended them for a 501cbuilding at ***! Can't say enough good things about Kelly and about the company!

[Message from Revdex.com: Standard type is the previous rebuttal from the consumer. Text in italics is the most recent business response.]Zip file attachment (1) contains pictures of my damaged deck and the adjacent construction gap which was all pointed out and seen by Mr. [redacted] when he came out and looked at the job on Saturday, March 5, 2016, not the date he reported. Attachments (2) and (3) are copies of the original written estimate and the contract I signed on March 18, 2016. The contract states that all work will be completed based on the estimate. The estimate states “Repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking.” The zip file attachment (5) shows photos taken by the contractor that I paid to inspect the job after the new roof was installed.  These pictures show a patch repair of the damaged area of decking with a small piece of metal flashing. They don’t show that any new decking had been installed. They also show the significant construction gap between the decking and fascia.   It is clear that the damage in Photos 1,2, and 3 is no longer present.  If it were the evidence would be quite clear and photos would show, we didn’t replace the decking.  I have yet to see any photos showing the decking was not replaced over the front door.  We only replaced a partial piece of drip edge where is where the old wood was cut out and replaced with new wood.  The wood was cut the same length and width as the existing wood otherwise there would be overhang and the water would not run into the guttering like the water is supposed to do. The estimate specifically states “repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking”.  This was completed.  I see no other issues with the 1st point.     Zip file attachments (6) & (7) show construction defects in other areas of the perimeter that were just roofed over.  See next e-mail because of attachment size limit has been reached.    We were paid to roof this house.  We were not paid to repair or replace the “construction defects”.  I feel this speaks for itself here.   Zip attachments (8), (9) and (10) depict other workmanship defects with the installation job, but the one most concerning is the construction gaps between the decking and fascia (up to 2 inches in some points) overlaid with shingles. I feel this will cause me to have additional problems at some point in the future with critters damaging shingles to access the gap and chew into the decking. I explained this to Mr. [redacted] prior to him beginning the work, but at no point have I requested assurance from him that I will not have a recurrent problem of this type.  A pest control company had already told me that if the gap is properly closed with metal edging I won’t.  “I feel this will cause me to have additional problems”.  Again an opinion.  The shingles are supposed to be installed to overhang just like they were before.  The photos sent in support there is no additional overhang from that of the initial roof installation. Again the small piece of drip edge that was missing under the area where the animals was replaced therefore, there should no other issues.  “what if’s” will get us nowhere.  If an animal wants into a house it will find its way in.   With respect to payment, when Mr. [redacted] initially told me to defer paying him on March 21, 2016 immediately after the roof had been installed because he needed his crew to come back out and do a proper cleanup, he said he would collect payment the following day. Before noon on March 22, 2016 he informed me via e-mail text message that he would come around 6:00 PM to collect payment. Later in the afternoon he called me and said it would be after 8 PM. At that point I instructed him to just wait until Wednesday or Thursday (i.e. March 23 or 24). He expressed relief and said that would work much better for him also. Those two days came and went though, and I never heard from him until March 26, 2016 when I was out shopping and he called me on my cell phone inquiring about payment for his services. I don’t know for sure, but he might have been at my house.   There was a small amount of debris left in the front section of guttering.  Again I refused to accept payment until the guttering was cleaned out.  I do not see any issue here. Yes, I was late on the 22nd to collect a payment.  Not sure what I can say here other than yes I was late.  I have never had a customer upset because of me not collecting payment on a specific time.  We are all human and humans run late from time to time.  I am not sure what else to say here.     At this point I was beginning to feel very uneasy about the way business was being conducted. I called the city of Benbrook Department of Permits and Inspections on March 28, 2016 and asked if a permit is required for any type of deck replacement work, even if it is not the whole deck.  I was told yes.  I informed them that a roofing contractor had purportedly replaced part of my deck, and asked if they had a permit number for my address. They informed me they did not.  They asked me for the contractor’s name and telephone number which I provided them. At this time I had not yet had my roof inspected and did not know new decking had not been replaced in the damaged area.    I will forward the email from the City of Benbrook clearly stating a permit wasn’t/isn’t required like I had stated in the beginning. Mr. [redacted] can take that issue up with the city.    Attachment (4) is a picture of an area of new deck which Mr. [redacted] sent me via a text message on March 26, 2016 after I questioned him as to whether not the damaged area of decking had actually been replaced with new decking as he had stated he would do. I cannot identify the roof in that picture as mine though, particularly since mine has gutters including in the area that needed repair as depicted in the photos of Zip file (1) attached to the previous e-mail message.    Does the decking over the front porch look like the first 3 photos sent by Mr. [redacted]? No.  This could only mean that we removed/replaced the decking in that area.      My efforts to obtain Mr. [redacted]’s cooperation in curing the workmanship issues with the roof installation were topsy-turvy and variable. He initially verbally agreed to install drip edge using custom flashing to close the construction gaps with the understanding that I would pay for the installation and any costs for the metal edging that exceeded what the insurance company allowed, but not for removal and replacement of shingles if necessary.  He came to my home on April 5, 2016 and took pictures of the roof, but they were of areas and/or from angles that don’t reveal the workmanship issues of the roof installation along the perimeter. He submitted a supplement to my insurance company on April 5, 2016 (See attachment (11)) to cover the gutter detachment and resetting necessary to perform the job properly, but my adjuster denied it because she felt the charges were excessive. She did approve a supplement from a different contractor whose charges were more reasonable, and adjusted my project allowance accordingly (see attachment (12).  As Mr. [redacted] pointed out, I have received that payment but have not cashed the check nor do I intend to until the services have been performed.   I did state we could remove/replace the guttering and drip edge and Mr. [redacted] agreed to pay for it as well since it was not part of the estimate or contract.  Why would Mr. [redacted] agree to pay for something if it was something that we were supposed to do initially?  As discussed earlier Mr. [redacted] wanted me to sign a contract that he put together and had many stipulations to make the project much more difficult than it needed to be.  He then wanted to add “custom metal edging, painting of the drip edge, ect.”.  The contract that Mr. [redacted] wanted me to sign was unreasonable. I did complete an estimate for Mr. [redacted] insurance company.  I use the exact same estimating software as Liberty Mutual.  I cannot see how my pricing was “excessive”.  First I have heard of this as well.   In the wake of the denial of his supplement Mr. [redacted] still verbally agreed to do the work but said I would have to use my own gutter contractor because his would not be available.   I use sub-contractors.  This means they do not work directly for me.  If they are unavailable, then they are unavailable.  What more can I do?   During a telephone conversation with Mr. [redacted] on April 9, 2016 I asked him to draw up a contract that we would mutually sign agreeing to do the drip edge work if I coordinated the gutter work. His response was I was putting him through too many hoops. He later sent me an e-mail message on April 9, 2016 suggesting that I use my own contractor and that to put this behind us he would deduct $400 from the invoice for removal and replacement of shingles necessary for the drip edge installation.   I have already answered the above.  I offered $400.00 as a customer service only.   The contractor I was planning to use though gave me a quote of $1,956.00 to remove and replace a starter strip and two rows of shingles to do the custom drip edge work.  I sent Mr. [redacted] an e-mail message on April 10, 2015 stating that he was $1,556 short on what he was willing to allow based on what I would have to pay to have the work redone. I informed him that I thought that contractor’s charges were a little steep and that I would continue to obtain other estimates in an attempt to get the work done at a more reasonable cost.   In the meantime I created a contract and invoice template for Mr. [redacted] to enter his charges and make changes in the wording that was mutually agreeable (see attachments (13) & (14)) if he was still willing to do the work. I e-mailed them to him on April 11, 2016 at 6:14 PM.  His response to that e-mail message shortly after midnight the following day was "I need a few days to get back to you." Later that day though at 9:32 PM I received a response from him stating the following: “I expect to be paid in full for the work “preformed.”  I am not agreeing to what you have proposed. Again, we have completed the project in full based on the signed contract.”   The contract and estimate template was not written by me.  It was written by Mr. [redacted] and again unreasonable.  Yes, the charges were not in line with what it would actually cost to do the work that Mr. [redacted] was requesting.  As I stated before these issues were not part of the contract or estimate. I did take two days to consult with a lawyer.  After the lawyer reviewed all the documentation, emails, photos, contract, ect. There was no need to go any further.  I feel I have proved that we did the work as stated in the contract.  All the additional work Mr. [redacted] is requesting is over and beyond what we contracted to do.   At this point after realizing the futility of my attempts to obtain good faith dealings I sent a check to Tarrant County Roofing via certified mail on April 12, 2016 for $7670.00 representing payment in full for the job (see attachment (15). The check cleared my bank on April 15, 2016. The date I mailed payment to him was twelve days after I received his invoice.   In addition to my concerns about workmanship issues and Mr. [redacted]’s failure to cure, even though the opportunity was extended to him, the delay in payment was partially due to his reluctance to send me an itemized invoice which I requested more than once for insurance and income tax purposes. After I informed him that he could send me a general invoice if he felt uncomfortable itemizing it he did eventually send me invoices (attachments 16 and 17) along with a copy of the contract (attachment 18) and an itemized estimate (attachment 19) via e-mail on March 30, 2016 at 10:53 PM. The invoice does not reflect that any deck repair was performed. The itemized estimate appears to be a revision of the original with charges entered subsequently. It lists “repair the decking issue on the front elevation with new decking” which was not done.   There is no work to “cure”.  Think I have proven this point many times.  It appears I left off the $125.00 decking repair on the invoice.  It is clear I charged for it and it is clear that the decking over the front door was replaced.  If Mr. [redacted] would like me to add it to the invoice, I will be happy to do this for him.  Just because I didn’t put it on the invoice doesn’t mean I didn’t do the repair.  I have already send in an itemized invoice.  Its exactly the same as that of what the insurance company uses.  I don’t know what else I can do to make it any clearer here.   In response to Mr. [redacted]’s assertion, on March 28, 2016 I did make a call to The Good Contractors List where his company is listed. The purpose of my call which I stated to the representative (Melody) with whom I spoke was to enlist their mediation resolving the problems I felt existed with the work and Mr. [redacted]’s modus operandi. The nature of the call was not one of a complaint but an attempt to utilize the service they advertise on their website – that is mediation between customers and contractors for work-related disputes and a $10,000.00 guaranteed backing of their contractors’ work.  Melody informed me that she would get Mr. [redacted]’s side of the story and get back with me. To date I have had no response from The Good Contractors List.   The Good Contractors List reviewed and informed me there was no case here.  They have everything that I had a lawyer look at and also feel that I did the work stated in the signed contact by Mr. [redacted]. All the items mentioned in the original complaint are not roofing related.  In Mr. [redacted] own words construction defect, fascia, construction gaps, guttering, ect.  None of these items are roofing related. There is no case here.