Allied Exteriors

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/06/18) */ I would agree that there was most definitely an issue with the permit being pulledMr [redacted] lives is a small pocket in littleton that is considered Denver countyThe majority of the homes we have roofed in that one mile radius are considered Jefferson County and not DenverThat was completely a mistake by our back office that we did not pull the permit in the proper municipalityA new permit has been pulled in Denver, the proper city [redacted] did not receive any text messages or pictures messages from Mr [redacted] about damage that may have occurred due to any of our workMr [redacted] all of sudden had a damaged roof, when it was time to pay his bill (convenient) Allied Exteriors was not notified that [redacted] had any issues with his roof until months later when we Allied was attempting to collect the past due bill [redacted] notified [redacted] that he had made a few repairs to his roof, INSTEAD of reaching out to the company contracted to do his workUnfortunately when work is performed on the roof by anyone other then our company, it voids the warranty As Mr [redacted] was notified by ***, His home will have a lien on it until Allied Exteriors is paid in fullHalf payment was collected days after installationMr [redacted] stated to [redacted] many times, that he just wants us to "go away" and not charge him the remainder of his billThat is not going to happenUnfortunately our business model includes being paid for work we performWe hope to receive payment soon from Mr *** Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/06/30) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Response to Revdex.com on complaint vAllied Exteriors (Contractor) The Contractor's response indicates that he acknowledges his failure to properly pull permits, and indicates that one was finally pulled months after he walked away from the jobHe fails to acknowledge that we discussed, through instant messaging (as documented on the attached file), several of the problems that occurred, and fails to recognize that it was he, not Mr [redacted] , that kept delaying and ignoring required repairs, due to negligent workmanship by his employee (exposed nail holes, and misapplied flashing)Documentation shows that he intentionally lied to Mr [redacted] about the inspection as well as his shoddy recordkeeping, and is no longer trustworthy, nor capable of conducting himself according to proper business standards Contractor blames back office for permit failure, due to assuming that Jefferson County (JeffCo) was the proper authority to pull a permitBut if the permit originally would have been sought from JeffCo, Contractor would have seen right away that the property was not in Jefferson CountyOne can only presume therefore, that the Contractor never made any attempt to acquire the permit in the first placeIs this also a part of the Contractor's "business model"? In retrospect, the contact terms should have served as warning, since one of the terms indicates that payments are not subject to any final inspections requiredThis would leave the customer without any leverage to affect deficient work Photos of damage to interior walls were sent via text message, as documented in the attachmentThe damage was due to negligent application of a flashing by Contractor's employeeIt was sent to Contractor's text message account, and acknowledged by "***" on April As is evidenced by the text documentation, it was Mr [redacted] that kept the discussion goingContractor failed to keep appointments on several occasions, and delayed responses continuously Contractor alleges an attempt to collect on a past due debt, when in fact no final bill was ever sent to Mr [redacted] until Mid-March, six months after the roof work was partially performedDuring the intervening time, Mr [redacted] made several phone calls to the Contractor, to discuss nail holes that Contractor left exposed, and requested the Contractor to provide a schedule for the needed work to be completedAll attempts were met with non-response from the ContractorConsequently, the Contractor is misleading in his response to the Revdex.com Complaint, when stating that Mr [redacted] "all of a sudden had a damaged roof"It is "***" that acknowledged in the text document that he was on the roof with "Mr***", and they both saw the exposed nail holes that had been filled by Mr [redacted] , due to the Contractor's lack of responding earlierMr [redacted] 's action to fill nail holes was to mitigate as much damage from occurring to the interior walls as was possible, especially considering approaching inclement weather SUMMARY Contractor's response indicates that his business model includes being paid for work performedMr [redacted] 's position is that the work has not been performed adequately, completely, nor to municipal code, as is evidenced by the Contractor's admitted very late application for permit(s)In addition negligent workmanship, evidenced by documented proof in the text messages between the parties must be corrected, and damages repairedThe deficiencies in workmanship must be corrected by the contractor in compliance with final inspection determination at Contractor's expense If that is not agreeable by the Contractor, then Mr [redacted] will file a lien on the Contractor's business for the roof to be replaced by a reputable and professional competitor, at the competitors bid price, as well as repairs to interior walls by a licensed contractorFurthermore, legal action will be taken against Contractor for damages and all legal fees and associated expenses incurred to date If it is agreeable by the Contractor, Mr [redacted] is willing to pay the remainder of the amount previously invoiced as full settlement

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/06/17) */ There was a huge misunderstanding regarding our communicationMr [redacted] had provided us with an old work number that had been changed when he switched departments at workWe were able to get in touch with [redacted] and communicate and address all issues he hadHe and his wife were very happy completely in agreement that they were satisfied with the entire experience with Allied Exteriors We both agreed that this should not be a complaint at all Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 11, 2015/06/24) */ I got the wrong number and I got a hold of [redacted] and everything worked out great, it was a mistake by me and everything is great now with no issues [redacted] is taking care of all that is needed to be done we can close this case with A+

I accept allied exterior proposal

Initial Business Response /* *** ** *** */
*** *** report is COMPLETELY UNTRUE*** has an issue of having conversations with our company, his insurance company and city inspectors, and then completely forgetting the conversations had
Multiple times *** has called our office
and his insurance agent in a drunken rage using agression and profanitythen calling back the next day without recollection of the prior conversation
We installed a roof for *** with a permit pulledWhat *** forgets to mention is he has a problem loosing his insurance payments regularlyTwice he has had to get checks re-issued because he "misplaced them."
After completion of his roof, he didnt make payment for over monthsWe told *** we did not feel comfortable moving forward until paid a deposit at leastWe usually collect a deposit upfront, but in good faith, we let *** waitmonths later *** finally made his first paymentWe agreed to install gutters and paint some of the additional items that the hail caused damage to*** decided since he would be selling his house, that he did NOT want all of the work doneHe then changed his mind about more timesWe finally sent someone out finish all of the work and *** agreed to pay the rest of his billHe mentioned to our employee who was working on his property, "do not tell *** (the owner of ALLIED) that his house had sold and that he was moving out of town." *** had plans of leaving without making final paymentWe advised *** that we would not have a final inspection or close out his job until we were paid in full
*** has been very belligerent and untrustworthy throughout this entire processSo much so, his insurance company has arranged the payment to be made out to our company and sent to our addressWe should receive final payment within business daysWe will then happily close out his fileI have saved most of ***'s drunken voicemails and also have his insurance agent willing to verify that Allied Exteriors has been upfront and honest throughout the entire process
*** mentioned if his home didn't sell, he would be writing a complaint to the Revdex.comThat is what happened and his story is completely falseAs all of the past homes we did last year, it is out policy that we send out a warranty and letter of completion once the has been paid in fullTo be successful and keep our business running, we require payment
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* *** ** *** */
I have an open case #XXXXXXXX against themI want you to know, thanks to your help they repaired their roof corrections and passed *** forgot to mention previously, as a result of the hail storm in 2014, I also had a deck railing that they should have replaced and paintedInstead, they just repainted the areaI now have a deck that looks like someone took a ballpeen hammer to
I would appreciate your letting them know that this has to be done also before I remove my complaintEverything else is fine
Thank you
Final Business Response /* *** *** *** */
Allied Exteriors completed work according to the paperwork provided by the insurance company, and the contract that was signed by Mr *** and Allied ExteriorsMr *** has completed his part by making his full payment

Mr *** is mistaken about the details of our project we completed last yearI do not feel this complaint should be considered by the Revdex.com as the information given is incorrect and only being brought to light because he has recently received a demand letter from our attorneyLast year our
Project manager *** contracted a roofing job in Littleton for a multi-family unit re-roofThe contracted amount was $7,with an additional $per sheet of plywoodWhen we began the install, we pulled a permit for the incorrect unit as there were separate units due to it being multi-familyIt was an honest mistake by our office, and once the building inspector requested we stop, we did and corrected the situation immediately so we were able to continue our work and stay on scheduleThe roof was installed with excellent workmanship, and done to codeAfter the installation Mr *** was nowhere to be foundWe have sent multiple invoices via mail, and we also sent emails and left voicemailsWe are happy to get the project its final inspection, as it is important for us to close out this project with the City of Littleton as wellWe have collected zero funds towards this project and due to length of time this has gone unpaid, we have had to turn it over to our attorneyThis is the first response we have received from Mr *** in the past yearIf we can get the majority of the payment, I would be happy to get the final inspection called inI would not feel comfortable closing this job with having received zero payment yetWe look forward to receiving payment and closing this job out as soon as possible

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/08/31) */
We have been in touch with ** *** and this was a complete misunderstandingAllied Exteriors performed work on one of his properties and he was completely satisfiedUnfortunately he had some work done on another property by another
contractorHe by accident got Allied confused with his other contractor
Regardless, we came out took care of the issues he was having by the other contractor
But we both agree this shouldn't be on our Revdex.com record at allWe request Revdex.com take it down when possibleThank you
Complaint Response Date bumped because: Holiday
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/09/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
There was no confusion on my partI was referred to Allied by my insurance agent and their representative contacted me and wrote me a bid on an Allied Exterior invoiceAlso, the check I made out to Allied Exteriors as the down payment was cashedIt turns out that the representative was let go half way through my projectAllied did end up making good on the bid submitted by their former employee and I received a small discount for my aggravationI do consider the matter to be closed

The proper repairs were made to pass inspection for the City of Centennial building department

The project manager whom Mr *** was working with unfortunately is no longer with our companyOnce Mr *** called our office, and the our former employee, we were happy to schedule the minor repair to the drip edge needed for inspection
Twice scheduled, the weather elements (snow and
rain) kept us from being able to perform our repairWe have the repair scheduled for the morning of Wednesday December 9th
We have been in contact with the city of Centennial and will notify and have them re-inspect right after we make the replacement of drip edge

I accept allied exterior proposal.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/06/18) */
I would agree that there was most definitely an issue with the permit being pulled. Mr [redacted] lives is a small pocket in littleton that is considered Denver county. The majority of the homes we have roofed in that one mile radius are considered...

Jefferson County and not Denver. That was completely a mistake by our back office that we did not pull the permit in the proper municipality. A new permit has been pulled in Denver, the proper city.
[redacted] did not receive any text messages or pictures messages from Mr [redacted] about damage that may have occurred due to any of our work. Mr [redacted] all of sudden had a damaged roof, when it was time to pay his bill (convenient).
Allied Exteriors was not notified that [redacted] had any issues with his roof until 6 months later when we Allied was attempting to collect the past due bill. [redacted] notified [redacted] that he had made a few repairs to his roof, INSTEAD of reaching out to the company contracted to do his work. Unfortunately when work is performed on the roof by anyone other then our company, it voids the warranty.
As Mr [redacted] was notified by [redacted], His home will have a lien on it until Allied Exteriors is paid in full. Half payment was collected 3 days after installation. Mr [redacted] stated to [redacted] many times, that he just wants us to "go away" and not charge him the remainder of his bill. That is not going to happen. Unfortunately our business model includes being paid for work we perform. We hope to receive payment soon from Mr [redacted].
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/06/30) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Response to Revdex.com on complaint v. Allied Exteriors (Contractor)
1.
The Contractor's response indicates that he acknowledges his failure to properly pull permits, and indicates that one was finally pulled 9 months after he walked away from the job. He fails to acknowledge that we discussed, through instant messaging (as documented on the attached file), several of the problems that occurred, and fails to recognize that it was he, not Mr. [redacted], that kept delaying and ignoring required repairs, due to negligent workmanship by his employee (exposed nail holes, and misapplied flashing). Documentation shows that he intentionally lied to Mr. [redacted] about the inspection as well as his shoddy recordkeeping, and is no longer trustworthy, nor capable of conducting himself according to proper business standards.
2.
Contractor blames back office for permit failure, due to assuming that Jefferson County (JeffCo) was the proper authority to pull a permit. But if the permit originally would have been sought from JeffCo, Contractor would have seen right away that the property was not in Jefferson County. One can only presume therefore, that the Contractor never made any attempt to acquire the permit in the first place. Is this also a part of the Contractor's "business model"? In retrospect, the contact terms should have served as warning, since one of the terms indicates that payments are not subject to any final inspections required. This would leave the customer without any leverage to affect deficient work.
3.
Photos of damage to interior walls were sent via text message, as documented in the attachment. The damage was due to negligent application of a flashing by Contractor's employee. It was sent to Contractor's text message account, and acknowledged by "[redacted]" on April 13.
4.
As is evidenced by the text documentation, it was Mr. [redacted] that kept the discussion going. Contractor failed to keep appointments on several occasions, and delayed responses continuously.
5.
Contractor alleges an attempt to collect on a past due debt, when in fact no final bill was ever sent to Mr. [redacted] until Mid-March, six months after the roof work was partially performed. During the intervening time, Mr. [redacted] made several phone calls to the Contractor, to discuss nail holes that Contractor left exposed, and requested the Contractor to provide a schedule for the needed work to be completed. All attempts were met with non-response from the Contractor. Consequently, the Contractor is misleading in his response to the Revdex.com Complaint, when stating that Mr. [redacted] "all of a sudden had a damaged roof". It is "[redacted]" that acknowledged in the text document that he was on the roof with "Mr. [redacted]", and they both saw the exposed nail holes that had been filled by Mr. [redacted], due to the Contractor's lack of responding earlier. Mr. [redacted]'s action to fill nail holes was to mitigate as much damage from occurring to the interior walls as was possible, especially considering approaching inclement weather.
6. SUMMARY
Contractor's response indicates that his business model includes being paid for work performed. Mr. [redacted]'s position is that the work has not been performed adequately, completely, nor to municipal code, as is evidenced by the Contractor's admitted very late application for permit(s). In addition negligent workmanship, evidenced by documented proof in the text messages between the parties must be corrected, and damages repaired. The deficiencies in workmanship must be corrected by the contractor in compliance with final inspection determination at Contractor's expense.
If that is not agreeable by the Contractor, then Mr. [redacted] will file a lien on the Contractor's business for the roof to be replaced by a reputable and professional competitor, at the competitors bid price, as well as repairs to interior walls by a licensed contractor. Furthermore, legal action will be taken against Contractor for damages and all legal fees and associated expenses incurred to date.
If it is agreeable by the Contractor, Mr. [redacted] is willing to pay the remainder of the amount previously invoiced as full settlement.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/06/17) */
There was a huge misunderstanding regarding our communication. Mr [redacted] had provided us with an old work number that had been changed when he switched departments at work. We were able to get in touch with [redacted] and communicate and address...

all issues he had. He and his wife were very happy completely in agreement that they were satisfied with the entire experience with Allied Exteriors.
We both agreed that this should not be a complaint at all.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 11, 2015/06/24) */
I got the wrong number and I got a hold of [redacted] and everything worked out great, it was a mistake by me and everything is great now with no issues. [redacted] is taking care of all that is needed to be done we can close this case with A+