1st Priority Roofing LLC

Mr [redacted] is not a customer of 1st Priority Roofing, and we would rather not address a complaint from someone who is not an actual customer, but the Revdex.com has asked we respond and we will comply Mr***'s complaint has changed several times over the last several weeks, and has even been re-written on the Revdex.com once already, so we will do our best to address the current complaint as is written before us The potential customer in reference to this situation by Mr [redacted] is Ms [redacted] , who we have a contract with, whom is the homeowner of the property in question, and whom is listed as the policy holder of the insurance company in question Ms [redacted] has never ONCE complained about our company as we were working toward addressing any potential concerns (please note this)To address the stated concerns of Mr***, see the following: 1) To pull a permit in Loveland (which we did), a contractor must be fully licensed and insured by the City of Loveland We were licensed by Loveland when we pulled the permit, we are currently licensed by Loveland, and we have provided the license herein2) Mr [redacted] has not only been filing complaints against 1st Priority Roofing, he has also been complaining about the Loveland Building Department itself, because they have sided with us on this matter An email from the Loveland Building Department sent to Mr [redacted] is attached, revealing that Loveland is unable to complete sheathing inspections all the time (as this is not abnormal) and has a simple remedy for this matter to close the permit and inspect workIn the email, the City Inspector notes the following: "I have spoken today with 1st Priority Roofing representative [redacted] , who indicated that 1st Priority would be willing to remove any covered areas requested by the Building Division in accordance with our typical procedure for remedying these types of matters, and the Building Division has determined that to be an acceptable manner for resolving this matterYou have indicated that you will not permit 1st Priority on the propertyAs noted by the inspector of Loveland, this matter is easily resolved and the work can be inspected per Loveland City Code and Recommendations, but Mr [redacted] (who claims to represent Ms [redacted] ) will not allow Loveland or our company on the property to do so3) Farmers Insurance released all funds to Ms [redacted] based on an estimate for work to be performed, not based on a completion certificate (no fraud was ever committed) That said, the discrepancy Mr [redacted] is referring to is a matter of opinion on construction practices and construction of similar kind, and in no way can be construed otherwise Any billing errors made to Ms [redacted] were largely in favor of her, as she was accidentally not charged for items that were completed on her property and chargeable per contract terms and conditions A fair invoice was provided to Ms [redacted] by our attorney, reflecting generous credits from 1st Priority to resolve this matter 4) See above 5) As noted by Loveland, it is not 1st Priority stopping the closing of this permit; it is Mr***6) Our attorney’s are handling Mr***’s continued desire to publically slander and commit libel against our company and representatives We cannot speak further on this matter7) We're not sure what this is about, or what law enforcement has been or will be involved by Mr*** The enforcement involved thus far is Loveland Building Department, who has put in writing that they are in agreement with 1st Priority Roofing8) A lien has been filed due to Ms [redacted] 's desire not to pay her outstanding balance

Mr. [redacted] is not a customer of 1st Priority Roofing, and we would rather not address a complaint from someone who is not an actual customer, but the Revdex.com has asked we respond and we will comply.  Mr. [redacted]'s complaint has changed several times over the last several weeks, and has even been...

re-written on the Revdex.com once already, so we will do our best to address the current complaint as is written before us.  The potential customer in reference to this situation by Mr. [redacted] is Ms [redacted], who we have a contract with, whom is the homeowner of the property in question, and whom is listed as the policy holder of the insurance company in question.  Ms [redacted] has never ONCE complained about our company as we were working toward addressing any potential concerns (please note this). To address the stated concerns of Mr. [redacted], see the following: 1) To pull a permit in Loveland (which we did), a contractor must be fully licensed and insured by the City of Loveland.  We were licensed by Loveland when we pulled the permit, we are currently licensed by Loveland, and we have provided the license herein. 2) Mr. [redacted] has not only been filing complaints against 1st Priority Roofing, he has also been complaining about the Loveland Building Department itself, because they have sided with us on this matter.  An email from the Loveland Building Department sent to Mr. [redacted] is attached, revealing that Loveland is unable to complete sheathing inspections all the time (as this is not abnormal) and has a simple remedy for this matter to close the permit and inspect work. In the email, the City Inspector notes the following: "I have spoken today with 1st Priority Roofing representative [redacted], who indicated that 1st Priority would be willing to remove any covered areas requested by the Building Division in accordance with our typical procedure for remedying these types of matters, and the Building Division has determined that to be an acceptable manner for resolving this matter. You have indicated that you will not permit 1st Priority on the property. As noted by the inspector of Loveland, this matter is easily resolved and the work can be inspected per Loveland City Code and Recommendations, but Mr. [redacted] (who claims to represent Ms [redacted]) will not allow Loveland or our company on the property to do so. 3) Farmers Insurance released all funds to Ms [redacted] based on an estimate for work to be performed, not based on a completion certificate (no fraud was ever committed).  That said, the discrepancy Mr. [redacted] is referring to is a matter of opinion on construction practices and construction of similar kind, and in no way can be construed otherwise.  Any billing errors made to Ms [redacted] were largely in favor of her, as she was accidentally not charged for items that were completed on her property and chargeable per contract terms and conditions.  A fair invoice was provided to Ms [redacted] by our attorney, reflecting generous credits from 1st Priority to resolve this matter.  4) See above 5) As noted by Loveland, it is not 1st Priority stopping the closing of this permit; it is Mr. [redacted]. 6) Our attorney’s are handling Mr. [redacted]’s continued desire to publically slander and commit libel against our company and representatives.  We cannot speak further on this matter. 7) We're not sure what this is about, or what law enforcement has been or will be involved by Mr. [redacted].  The enforcement involved thus far is Loveland Building Department, who has put in writing that they are in agreement with 1st Priority Roofing. 8) A lien has been filed due to Ms [redacted]'s desire not to pay her outstanding balance.