Action Roofing & Siding, LLC

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/12/22) */
The first accusation made by the customer is inaccurate and the second, in my opinion, was made in bad faith considering that we had agreed to address that issue within a matter of days before the complaint was filed
Our contracts are
specifically worded to include potential unforeseen repairs to roof framing that is not exposed until the roof covering is removedThis was the case with this customer's projectIt was noted on the contract that re-sheathing of the roof, if needed, would be charged at a specific rate per sheetWhen the roof was removed it became apparent that, due to building code and manufacturer requirements, the roof would have to be completely overlaid with new sheathingThis was communicated to the customer before the sheathing was installed and it was made clear that we could not put on the new roof covering until that was completedIt was not an option, but rather a requirement and he was aware of the situation the day that it occurred
During our discussion about the sheathing, to help alleviate the customer's concerns, I told him that I could contact the city see if an inspector would come out and verify our findings on siteWhen I spoke with the building inspector and told him about the issue, he responded by saying that he did not have to make an on-site visit and that, as a licensed contractor, it is our duty to make the call according to the building code and to document our findings, which we did with photographsThis was communicated to the customerI asked that the building inspector email to me the code language which required the replacement of the sheathing and he did so
The customer did, as he states, request a copy of the email that I received from the city, which I did send to himThough, he mistakenly assumed that the email would contain specific statements about the sheathing made by the inspectorThat was never the caseThe email I received from the city inspector contained nothing other than the attachment I provided to the homeowner with the code languageNo other email from the city was received or promised to the homeowner
Further, it was never promised to the customer that we had photographs of "all" new decking boards in placeWe did, however, offer and provide photographs of a substantial portion of both sides of the roof with the sheathing installed as well as photographs of the old roof deck showing the problems with itI am not sure how the customer calculated the necessary material for the roof decking, but cutting waste varies from project to project and some material that is cut becomes unusable due to requirements for spanning framing members and odd cuts around various detailsWe used or discarded as unusable waste all sheets billed for
Back in August, the customer did make the claim via email that a light had been brokenIt was noted within a lengthy email and was unintentionally overlooked at that timeWhen it was later brought to my attention, in early December, I apologized for the oversight and, even though there wasn't any evidence of a light bulb having been broken, offered to install a new bulb or discount the bill by $The customer opted to have us replace the bulb which we did on December 10thThe cost of the bulb was only $plus tax
The customer and I communicated back and forth via email over a period of a few monthsI tried to address his concerns and, despite his claims, did provide the information that he requested, including multiple photographs and building code documentationOn a number of occasions I requested that he contact me by phone to discuss the matter as I am out of the office most of the time during our busy seasonHe said he preferred to communicate by email but that only made conversation more difficult on my part and is why it did take some time to respond to a few of his concerns
I understand that unforeseen costs can be a burden, but neither party can decide what constitutes a "fair" price months after a contract has been signed and the job completedI am sorry that the customer feels that he has been overcharged or that our company acted unethically, but the additional work was not an option to be accepted; it was a building code and shingle manufacturer requirement, as stated previouslyThe possibility of which was accounted for in the contractThough we had already applied a discount of $275, reducing the per-sheet contract price on the roof sheathing for the customer, I am willing to discount sheets of the roof sheathing at the effective rate we charged, $per sheet, for a total refund of $if the customer is willing to accept that offerHowever, I believe that the request for a $refund for the light bulb is unreasonable and unnecessaryThe bulb has been replaced and it cost a mere $Please let me know if a refund of $is acceptable to resolve this matter
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/01/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept this response as potions of it are not true
As I noted beforeThe contractor changed his story from having a city inspector come by the property, to having an email from the cityAs noted, the contractor did send me a code document via email, however I asked numerous times to have the original email, from the city, forwarded to meHad the contractor done this, it would have proven that the attachment/document was provided by the city, and satisfied my concern over why he changed his reasons for adding the extra workHowever, despite numerous requests the contractor refused to do thisEven if the original email was nothing more than an attachment, I requested that the original email from the city be forwarded to me, to verify the contractor's claims that is came from the city, not just the attachment
The contractor states that it was never promised that he had photos of all roof decking sheets in placeThis is not trueI was verbally told that they had documentation of the entire roof, and all sheets in placeIt was for this reason that I requested that we communicate via email, so that I would have documentation of the promises/statements that were being madeIt is true that the contractor asked me to call him, at which point I noted that I preferred to communicate by email, but I fail to see how this would impede his ability to communicateEmails responses can be done at any time, whereas a phone conversation needs both parties to be present/available for communication to happenIf the contractor was busy, email should have made it easier for him to reply to my concernsWhen the contractor did not reply to my emails within hours I would try to reach him via phoneHe would not answer his phone, and I would leave a message asking him to call me back, and when I did not get a response within hours I would send him a follow up email noting that I called him, and had not heard back from himThese follow up emails went unreturnedIf the contractor disputes this, I have the email chain noting that I was following up with both emails and phone calls
As to the contractor's claims surrounding the damaged light, it was brought to his company's attention three times back in AugustOnce in a verbal conversation with his salesman, and twice via emailIt was clearly noted, separated, and bolded in the emailsIf he was concerned with responding to me, I do not understand how it could be overlookedHis claim that the light was a "mere $6.99" means that he did not replace the light that his crew broke, he simply bought the cheapest one possibleIn all fairness I did not specify the light, so it is understandable that he bought the cheapest oneHis claim that it was a "mere $6.99" also does not consider the inconvenience of having damaged property/a non-functional light for four monthsAlso, his claim that he replaced it "without evidence" is not trueHe required that I send him a photo of the damaged property before he would act on itOnce again, I have an email that he sent noting that we wouldn't act on it until he had photos of the damage

We completely understand our client's concerns with the schedule. This year has been busier than usual and while we have been working very hard to complete projects as quickly as possible within a time frame that is acceptable to our clients, unfortunately we were not able to do so in this
case. However, Steve had been working closely with our client last week to resolve these issues. The stone work, which was the bulk of work left to be completed, was finished last week. It is my understanding that the client is happy with the result and Steve continues to work with her to address the few remaining items as soon as possible