P & C Roofing, Inc.
Added on -, by Reviewer569425
Review: On 062802, I contracted with P&C Roofing to have my house re-roofed. A portion of the contract reads "Install new .032 aluminum valley metal, new aluminum pan, step and counter flashing, …" Also listed "25 Year Manufacturer's Warranty on shingles." The roofing job was completed, and I paid the total price of $4300.00 on 081102. I purposely chose the 25 year shingles because I did not want to have to deal with any roof issues while I expected to remain in the house. Shortly after the installation, a crew had to return and re-seal around the chimney area due to a new water leak that ended up staining a bedroom ceiling. I did not make an issue about the failure of the initial re-roofing, but just went ahead and repainted the bedroom ceiling.
Early in November 2014, I noticed a water stain on my living room ceiling. On 111614, since it was raining, I went up into my attic to see if I could locate any water leaks. I did locate a leak over top of where the water stain was located. The location was at the base of the first floor front roof section where it transitions to the more level roof over the front porch. While I was in the attic, I also noticed another water leak along a rafter that separates the first floor level and the upper floor, at the rear section of the first floor roof. Photographs are available showing the leak areas and the ceiling water stain.
I made telephone contact with Mr. [redacted], the reported owner of P&C roofing, and he was very cordial with me. He stated that you would certainly stand behind any valid contract issues even though the contract was 12 years old. His employee, "[redacted]" then responded to my residence. We both examined the attic area and went onto the roof. As to the leak along the rear section of the roof, it was obvious that the exposed flashing at the base of the upper story rear wall was made out of possibly stainless steel since it was covered with rust. The exposed flashing on the front portion of that same wall was obviously made out of aluminum. [redacted] tried to explain that it is proper to use either aluminum or stainless steel in doing the flashing, though it was obvious to me that that piece of rusted flashing was on the house prior to the re-roofing because of the matching old chalk on both the siding and the flashing. [redacted] stated that he did see problems with the rusted flashing, and told me that P&C Roofing could fix it for a fee. At this point I was wondering why P&C would not cover the repair of, at least, the rear flashing, because they failed to replace it back in 2002. When I further questioned [redacted], he suggested that I get a few tubes of Black Jack to caulk over the rusted flashing, as a temporary fix. As to the other leak over the porch, it was obvious that there was a depressed area along the transition between the two roofs sections where the shingles were depressed enough that standing water would be collected. The area of the leak and area of the greatest depression was 7 ½ feet from the upper story wall and 11 ½ feet down from the roof peak. Since I have some knowledge of proper roofing procedures, and believe that valley metal should be installed at all roof transitions to support shingles that cover the transition gaps, I attempted to question [redacted] as to the appearance that the support structure under the shingles had failed or was missing. He refused to even acknowledge that the depression was the reason of the leak, but tried to say that the leak might be coming from the roof edge flashing at the base of the upper story wall. [redacted] stated that he wanted have another person look at the roof to try to determine the cause of the leak on the front portion of the house.
A number of days later, two other P&C employees came to my house and examined the front portion of the roof. One of the gentlemen acted surprise that he had been called to determine the reason of the leak over the roof. He said that there was no way the leak would have been coming from the edge of the roof where it butted up to the upper floor wall. He said it was obvious that the shingles had failed due to the shingles having collapsed into the gap along the transition between the two roof sections.
The next P&C Roofing employee to come to my house was "[redacted]." He explained that the repair would consist of removing a section of the roof shingles and placing a section of wood along the whole length (30 feet) of the transition between the main roof and the porch roof causing the roof slope to actually then have three different slope angles as oppose to two. He then explained that work would also have to be done on the exposed end of the roof to fill-in the gap between the existing siding and the new section of wood. Initially, [redacted] would not state that valley metal should have been installed over the transition between the two roofs, but when I asked him if valley metal would be installed over the now two transitions, he stated "Yes." Even though I knew that adding another roof section was not the proper repair method, I requested a work proposal, so that I would have in writing what was being told to me.
I then received in the mail a proposal, dated 121714, from P&C Roofing which stated in part "Install ½ " plywood strips at roof transition area to build up low spots." There was no mention of installation of valley metal over the transition. The price to do the work was listed as $2250.00. I noticed that the proposal did not match what was told to me, and there was no apparent acknowledgment that the leaks could have been caused by not having the valley metal installed, and/or caused by the failure to replace the old stainless steel, as directed in the 2002 contract.
It is then that I talked to Mr. [redacted] on the phone for the second time. Based on our first conversation, I felt that he were not aware of any of the details as to my situation. I explained what had happened up to that point, and I expressed my concern that I could not make a claim against the shingle manufacturer if it is found that there was a failure to properly support the shingles by not using valley metal at the transition. I requested that he give me a time that I might come to his office and meet with him directly to show him the photographs. He stated that there was no need for me to come to his office, but implied that he and his men would come and meet me at my house, giving him a chance to personally examine the roof. The meeting was arranged for 122914.
On the morning of 122914, [redacted] and [redacted] again arrived at my house. When I asked if Mr. [redacted] was going to be joining us, they acted surprise, and indicated that would be something out of the ordinary. [redacted] re-explained what he said before. When I questioned them as to the previous statement that [redacted] said about using valley metal over the proposed two transitions, and why that was not appearing in the proposal, they really did not respond. When I stated that I had another roofing company examine the roof, and it was confirm that there should be valley metal at all roof transitions, [redacted] stated to me "OK, we will do it any way that you like." My response back was that I shouldn't be the one to tell a roofing company how to do their job correctly. [redacted] confirmed that the $2250.00 price was what P&C would charge to correct the shortcomings of the initial re-roofing, though the proposal is not really clear as to whether or not it deals also with the leak from the rusted flashing.
On 011015, another roofing contractor repaired my roof. That repair included the installation of 24 inch aluminum valley metal over the entire 30 foot length of transition, ice and water shield, and 25 year shingles. Also, new flashing was installed to cover up the rusted flashing. They also installed new flashing on the front portion of the roof so that the areas would match in appearance. The total amount charged was $1200.00. There are photographs available to show the roof areas before, during, and after the repairs. The photographs confirm that no valley metal had been used over the transition at the time of the re-roofing in 2002.
When I had work done by P&C Roofing in 2002, I had an expectation that the work would be done in a manner that corresponded to proper construction procedures. I also had an expectation that the contract would be followed as stated. Based on the failure of the 25 year shingles, and the resulting water damage, I became aware in November of 2014 that the contract had not been followed. It is obvious that a portion of stainless steel flashing had not been replaced with aluminum flashing, allowing a leak for which I needed to pay money to have fixed. The failure to install valley metal allowed, over time, the shingles to collapse into the gap of a transition, causing a leak and damage, for which I had to pay money to have fixed. I still have yet to repaint my living room ceiling. Also, I am now not able to take advantage of the 25 year warranty on the initial shingles due to the fact that they were improperly installed over a roof transition that did not have any valley metal to offer support under the shingles.Desired Settlement: This letter is in follow-up to my complaint letter to [redacted] of P&C Roofing, dated March 7, 2015. As result of my letter, I received a telephone call from [redacted] on March 20th, 2015. His initial statement to me was to chastise me for not supposedly speaking to him before I sent out my initial complaint letter. I responded, as I indicated in my complaint letter, that I had attempted to meet with him at his office, but he refused that by stating that he wanted to come to my property to see the situation first hand. I then told him that when he did not show up with his workers, and that when they indicated that it would be unusual for him to come to a work site, I felt that he was not desirous to work with me. He attempted then to blame his workers for speaking out against him. I responded by pointing out that I should not be blamed for the working relationship that he has with his employees.
Mr. [redacted] then made a big deal about indicating that he is an attorney. This statement seemed to be given in an attempt to intimidate me, for it really had no fit with what we were discussing, being proper roof construction/repair. As a side note, I later checked with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Delaware at [redacted], and learned that there are no licensed attorneys in the State of Delaware that have the last name of "[redacted]."
Mr. [redacted] stated that he would give me $600.00 to help cover my expenses if I would agree to a "cease and desist" letter reference my complaint. I told Mr. [redacted] that I would provide him an answer within a few days.
On March 24th, 2015, I made telephone contact with Mr. [redacted]. I advised Mr. [redacted] that I would not be accepting his offer of $600.00. I was expecting to be asked as to my reasoning, but Mr. [redacted] just stated "OK," and then hung up.
For the purpose of documentation, the following are the reasons that I feel that Mr. [redacted] was not acting in good faith:
• His company, P&C Roofing, signed a contract to do my roof in a certain manner.
• By failure of the roof, it was learned that the initial contract was not followed.
• P&C workmen offered to "fix" the leak, without acknowledgment of failure to follow the initial contract.
• The "fix" was not to standard recognized contractor procedures, and it was going to cost $2250.00.
• Another roofing contractor correctly fixed the roof at the total cost of only $1200.00.
• There has been no attempt to properly compensate me for the damage to my home and the repair expenses which all resulted from actions of P&C Roofing.