Allen Park Motor

The homeowner contacted us through a referral service and
asked us to inspect her roof for possible storm damage. Our representative went to her home,
inspected the roof and took a lot of photos.
He told her that she did have storm damage and recommended that she call
her insurance
company. He told her that
he would be there when the insurance adjuster came out if she wanted him to,
but he would need her to sign our subject to agreement. The subject to agreement is a standard
practice that many construction companies use when working with a homeowner’s
insurance company. It states that the
agreement is subject to the insurance company’s approval of the work. It also states that the agreement does not
obligate the homeowner or the company in any way unless the claim is approved
by the insurance company The homeowner asked
our representative to leave her the subject to agreement so she could read it. Our representative, being a new employee, told
her that he didn’t know if the company would allow him to leave a blank
contract with the homeowner and asked her to call the office. She called the office and we talked for quite
a while. She said that the
representative who came out was very polite and professional (not how she
portrayed him in this complaint). I went over the insurance process with
her. I explained that the reason we have
the subject to agreement is that if we take our time and expertise meeting with
the insurance adjuster that if it is approved, she would use us to do the work
and not someone else. She said, “Oh, of
course I would use you. That would be
horrible of me to have you meet the adjuster to get it approved and then use
someone else to do the work”. I emailed
a copy of the front and back of the agreement for her to read and told her to
let us know if she wanted to move forward.
She called me back later that day and said that she did want to move
forward and have us meet the adjuster.
She said that the adjuster was coming the next day so she would come to
our office to sign the agreement. She
came to our office and signed the agreement on September 17, and our
representative met her adjuster the next day.
He pointed out the damage and at first the adjuster was just going to
pay to repair the roof. Our
representative pointed out that the areas he wanted us to repair could not be
repaired without damaging more of the existing roof. The adjuster agreed and approved it for a
complete replacement. Later that day,
the adjuster emailed our representative a copy of his estimate and scope of
work. On Monday, September 21st,
the homeowner sent me an email asking for an estimate and asked me to call
her. I called her & told her that
our agreement states that we will do the work for the insurance proceeds. I told her the only cost to her would be her
deductible, but I would have our representative prepare an estimate for
her. She said that was fine and that
she was going to be busy until Thursday and would get back to me then. On Wednesday, the 23rd, I emailed
her our estimate which was $more than the insurance’s estimate. I told her that we would still (as our
agreement states) do the work for the insurance proceeds. I also told her in the email that the
insurance had left off some items that should be on the estimate and that we
would supplement the insurance company for those items so that everything would
be covered under the claim. I never
heard back from the homeowner. On
Monday, September 28th, I called and left a message on her voicemail
letting her know that our supplier was offering the *** *** *** *** color series at no additional charge.
In the message, I told her that I could have our representative bring
out the samples to her. We still never
heard from her. The phone call that she claims
to be intimidating and harassing was simply a call asking when we could get the
work started according to the agreement that we had. We would never threaten or harass a customer. We do a lot of insurance claims and have
found through the years that some people want to use our time, expertise and
knowledge to help them get the insurance company to approve the claim, but then
once they have the insurance’s approval, they want to get several estimates to
find someone to do the work for less so they can put money in their pocket
This is why we and many contractors use the subject to agreement. We could have just given her an estimate to
replace the roof and let her meet the adjuster on her own. She chose to have us meet the adjuster after
reading our agreement that I emailed to her.
She came to our office to sign the agreement because her adjuster was
coming the next day and she wanted our representative’s knowledge and expertise. We
have decided to cancel her contract and obligation to us

Although the owner has indicated that the issue is resolved
and that payment of the bill for $has been cancelled, the facts and
explanations provided in their response are not completely accurate and certainly
warrant further clarification. The
Integrity 1st representative that was sent and the owner indicated that
they needed to be there and that it would be in my best interest for them to be
there so they could be an advocate on my behalfNext, my insurance adjuster actually got on
the roof to remove the debris and observe the damage to the roof before making
any decision. Based on the extensive
damage (including two holes) he determined that it was a total
replacement. I contacted my insurance
adjuster regarding the following statement found in the response by Integrity 1st
Roofing, “Our representative pointed out that the areas he wanted us to repair
could not be repaired without damaging more of the existing roof. The
adjuster agreed and approved it for a complete replacement”.
The insurance adjuster’s response was that the decision to replace the
roof was not based on the Integrity 1st representative’s comments. His decision was based on an assessment which
indicated extensive damage The response by Integrity 1st is
also missing the information that my insurance adjustor also had a contractor to
come to exam the roof that day. The
Integrity 1st representative and the adjuster were both present
while he examined the roof. The decision
to replace the entire roof was based on the assessment of the adjuster and the
contractorNext, the statement, “Later
that day, the adjuster emailed our representative a copy of his estimate and
scope of work” is correct,
but it was by the representative’s request. Next, I repeatedly asked this company for a bid from the beginning and prior
to meeting with the insurance adjuster and was never supplied with one until I
cancelled the contract. I was repeatedly told that is not how it is
done in the roofing industry when insurance is involvedThe fact that the owner did not provide one is
proof that I never received one until after I cancelled. With regards to the phone call that I
received being, “simply a call asking when we could get the work started” is
not accurate either. The characteristics
of a harassing/intimidating call are clear and specific and that call clearly
exemplified it in tone, wording, and statementsEven after explaining my prior
conversation with his wife (who is the owner) regarding the bids, he continued
to pressure and argue that I did not have a choice to cancel the agreement and
that the job was theirs. Even to the
point of indicating that I would end up paying for two roofs if I did not go
with their company. Integrity 1st
was aware that I was getting a total of three bids (two others in addition to
theirs) and if the three bids were in close range I would give the business to
them I had not contacted them because
that process had not been completed. Yet
their calls were as though they were ignoring that the process was in placeIn addition, I discussed with the insurance
adjuster that two trees in the yard would need to be removed before the roofing
job could begin. The adjuster agreed. The Integrity 1st representative
was present in person when that was being discussed and even stated that he
knew someone that removed trees. So they
could not have started the job right away anyway. I was working on selecting a company to
remove the trees when I received the damaging call from the husband of the
owner of Integrity 1st Roofing.
It is obvious that something occurred during my interactions with
Integrity 1st Roofing that forced me to contact the Revdex.com. The referral service expressed disagreement with
the company’s approach and decision. My
biggest concern is that this company is not stepping up to the plate and
acknowledging their wrong in this matter.
Specifically, how it could have been handled using a more upfront,
transparent, and customer-friendly approach and thus avoiding it reaching this
level of dissatisfaction by a consumer. Not
acknowledging any error is a forewarning that the same behavior may be
repeated. I am satisfied with their
decision to resolve this issue and void the bill
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***