Armor Home Services, LLC

As it pertains to the statements by the customer regarding communication between the customer and Armor, it still remains factual that although customer made attempts to communicate to Armor, customer did so directly through the salesperson via cellular telephone and email and did not directly contact the Armor corporate office The contract was between customer and Armor, not between the customer and the salesperson Armor's corporate telephone numbers are on the contract and easily accessible Armor logs every telephone call that comes into the corporate office and there were never any telephone calls into Armor corporate from the customer regarding the issue for which customer has been dissatisfied Nor were there any telephone calls from customer's insurance company/agent into Armor corporate prior to the day it was finally brought to Armor corporate's attention.It still remains, had the customer contacted Armor's corporate office in lieu of trying to facilitate resolution of the issue through the salesperson, then the issue would have been immediately resolved As support, the minute this issue was brought to the attention of Armor corporate, it was immediately handled Further, on the day the issue was brought to Armor corporate's attention, the check for satisfaction of the issue was mailed on that day to customer Although customer said they never received the check, it was the fault of customer/ [redacted] as the check was in fact returned to Armor as undeliverable even through the address on the letter was correct It was through no fault of Armor that the letter was returned And, when the letter was returned, it was on the very next day it was received back by Armor that Armor had an employee hand deliver the check to the customer's address.This issue should be considered at RESOLVED.We do apologize for the breakdown in communication between the customer and the salesperson Armor will deal internally with that failure of communication

Business contacted Revdex.com and stated that this matter has been resolvedThe business also stated that went to the customer and again explained that their work did not cause the leakThe business states the they went above and beyond to do everything they could to make customer happy

Please follow the email chain set forth below Armor's position and proposed resolution is clearly set forth in the email to Mr [redacted] .Following is the response from Armor to the customer's email (sets forth Armor's position and proposed resolution):Mr [redacted] , As you can similarly see from my title, I am directly involved daily, and have been for over years, in various customer-related and diverse environments, with professional, business, and consumer relationships I base my decisions and ultimately those of Armor Services on factual evidence and supportWith that said, I did not indicate that Armor would not work with you to resolve the situationWhat I indicated is that from the explanations and accounts that I had previously received from the people knowledgeable and on site, I needed to investigate further I did, as a matter of course, point out that we have had people accuse Armor of causing damage which in fact was pre-existing, possibly unknown to the homeowner, and not caused by Armor Factually, I pointed out that the three people who were on site and had first hand knowledge 100% denied causing the damage Further, from the operations that occurred on your property it is highly unlikely that the damage fits with the work being done and the ancillary movement of equipment, materials, and waste around the boat And finally, there was no evidence on the ground of fiberglass particles or tar-based scratches on the boat caused by falling shingle debris This morning I again discussed the incident with all three knowledgeable people who again confirmed that they deny Armor caused the damageAs an avid boater who owns 2, I do know that boating incurs accidents during docking, trailering, and use, are the damage to your boat looks eerily similar to the backs of several boats in the marina and at one point to mine Again, I was merely basing my telephone conversation with you this morning on the facts of our operations on site, discussions with my people on site with first hand knowledge, and my own knowledge of boating mishaps and docking damageHowever, taking all into consideration and as a matter of putting this in the past, Armor is prepared to cover the repair cost provided [redacted] completes the repair in only those areas on the back swim platform Alternatively, if you would like to get an estimate from a repair facility of your choice, please do so and forward that to me I will consider the estimate upon review with [redacted] of its reasonableness and, if acceptable, will directly pay your repair facilityI do, however, need the text messages emailed or texted to me so that I may internally deal with and document the incident Please forward them at your convenience And, as a point of clarification to your statement regarding the Revdex.com, Armor does more than residential projects annually in addition to our multi-million dollar commercial business I can assure you that the Revdex.com complaint annually hardly equates to a company of poor reputation and performance Without exclusion those complaints are from difficult customers that are requiring things of Armor well outside the bounds of reasonableness and the letter of the contractPlease respond at your convenience so we can move forwardTim Timothy ***, VP and CounselArmor Services Following is the email received from the customer this morning:Tim, As you can see by my title, I am directly involved in Customer Experience with my organization As a multi-billion dollar investment company we pride ourselves in providing a superior Customer Experience for our clients Unfortunately, my experience with Armor Services has not lived up to my expectationsAs I mentioned on the phone this morning, your company damaged my boat The roofers showed up unannounced and began work They asked my wife to move our SUV, but did not ask her to move the boat After the roof was installed, the crew left without notification and when I came out of the house I noticed my boat was damaged I called the sales rep immediately to report the damage He came out to inspect and used his finger to flick off loose fiberglass and these are his words "...you can tell that this just happened" He called [redacted] to come back to the location to take a look at it [redacted] did not admit guilt, but did say he would pay for it The sales rep called [redacted] to find out what he wanted to do and [redacted] told him he had a friend at [redacted] that could fix it I agreed to use his guy because I figured he could do it at cost and your company could save money in the process I have been more than patient and accommodating during this entire process Now, I call you this morning in hopes of getting the ball rolling on getting the damage fixed and I get stonewalled I am told by you that I am basically a liar who is trying to extort money from your company for damage that existed before your crew arrived Extremely unprofessional and frankly disappointingThe damage to my boat is probably no more than $200- $retail as it is cosmetic and not structural I am sure the cost would be even less if ***'s buddy would have fixed it for him Now, none of that is going to happen I have seen the comments on Revdex.com and unfortunately I didn't cancel the contract before the roof was installed I have always recognized companies for admitting to their mistakes, fixing the issue and following through on their commitments I would have happily reported on Revdex.com that yes there was a problem, but they took responsibility to fix it, followed through on their commitments and I am a satisfied customer What a different picture that would paint of Armor Services than the picture that is out there now I will not be sending you any texts or pictures as it is my belief it would do me no good Your organization has not been honest or forthright with me to this point so why change now Thank you, Keith J [redacted] , FLMI, PCS, AAPA Director; Annuity Product Specialists Customer Experience Program Manager

This is the formal response on behalf of Armor Services regarding the complaint filed by [redacted] [redacted] has incorrectly stated several facts which will be addressed.Armor was contracted for and did complete a roof replacement on the [redacted] building in June of In April 2009, at the request of [redacted] , an inspection of the roofing system and ancillary building structure was conducted and an estimate was prepared by Armor Armor pointed out that a new roof was appropriate and also pointed out several structural issues pertaining to the parapet and exterior walls [redacted] , assumably due to financial constraints, decided not to have the parapet walls fixed (brick/block walls that were in need or repairs and tuckpointing) and opted just to have the roof torn-off and replaced Armor completed the work pursuant to the Contract and in fact, [redacted] along with the church trustees signed-off in writing that the roofing system as installed met their approval (a copy is available upon request) On several occasions dating from approximately year after the installation of the new roof, Armor has made service calls to [redacted] to repair leaks caused by tears to the roof membrane, decaying parapet block walls, and the failure of [redacted] to properly maintain the roofing system A membrane roof system requires periodic cleaning, maintenance, and inspection to prevent damage and to maintain the satisfactory operation of the roofing system It is in fact true that Armor has made several "patches" to the roofing membrane; all of those repairs were necessitated as the result of punctures to the membrane caused by debris being thrown on the membrane, people walking on the membrane, and the failure to keep the membrane clear of debris such as tree limbs and other falling objects Further, Armor has made repairs to the membrane and the ancillary structure due to the continued decay of the parapet block walls and further wood rot caused by water seepage within the tuckpointing/joints between blocks/bricks The water penetration being complained about by [redacted] was not initially caused by a faulty roof system, but by their failure to take care of another issue which has now resulted in water intrusion behind and now underneath the roofing system Armor has always been receptive to addressing the issues when notified by [redacted] ...to Armor's detriment and unreimbursed expense It appears now as though [redacted] has continued issues which fall outside the scope of the original contract and warranty.Further, [redacted] ***, legal counsel for Armor Services, has made several follcalls to [redacted] at [redacted] many of which have been unanswered Additionally, Armor is in receipt of a certified letter from [redacted] 's legal counsel and, as such, [redacted] has made several telephone calls to [redacted] 's legal counsel to address any outstanding issues and disputes...again every single call has been unanswered and unreturned Further, [redacted] will not breach a legal responsibility not to contact [redacted] directly as [redacted] has retained legal counsel in this matter Therefore, if [redacted] wants to discuss the matter any further it must either be between legal counsels, or, in the event [redacted] is not longer retained by legal counsel, then a letter from said legal counsel directly to Armor Services indicating the [redacted] is no longer represented by counsel.Respectfully, [redacted] ***Counsel for Armor Services

I have spoken with Mr [redacted] 's wife regarding the matter It was stated to the customer that had the customer contacted Armor's office (customer did not contact Armor's office at any point regarding the matter and only tried communicating to the salesperson via the salesperson's cell phone), the matter would have been addressed immediately.Armor has since mailed a check to satisfy the customer's complaint Armor has requested the customer to notify the Revdex.com that this matter has been resolved[redacted] ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Mr *** is incorrect regarding us not contacting the companyOur insurance agent did contact Armor Home Services and received no response. Salesperson we did communicate with is listed as an owner of the company, wrote up contract, and accepted moneys due.Mr*** is incorrect in method of communication with salespersonThere was communication with salesperson by cell phone at time of project, but all communications with salesperson regarding damage either by ourselves or through our insurance agent has been email, including message stating our conclusion that if dispute is not resolved, filing a complaint with Revdex.com will be our next stepThis message was sent about four weeks before actual filing.Mr*** did speak with my wife on FebAs of Feb18, we are not in receipt of check.Dispute stands unresolved.
Regards,
*** ***

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response If you wish, you may update it before sending it If you and the business have reached an agreement and compliance is set for a future date, we trust the business will comply Please contact us after that time if the matter is not resolved as agreed and we will review the complaint and proceed accordingly.]
Revdex.comThe representative from Armor who sold us the contract, supervised the project, and promised to repair damage incurred during the project, is represented in theseresponses from Armor as only a sales representativeArmor needs to correct their website*** ***, the sales representative, is listed as an owner.The owner never repaired the damage as promised, nor reimbursed us as promised. Continuing to fault the aggrieved party for not contacting the right officer at some home office is a bit of a stretch.We are finally in receipt of reimbursement after check was returned to Armor as undeliverable by the *** ***We have no influence on postal incompetence.Accordingly, I consider the matter resolved
Regards,
*** ***

As it pertains to the statements by the customer regarding communication between the customer and Armor, it still remains factual that although customer made attempts to communicate to Armor, customer did so directly through the salesperson via cellular telephone and email and did not directly contact the Armor corporate office.  The contract was between customer and Armor, not between the customer and the salesperson.  Armor's corporate telephone numbers are on the contract and easily accessible.  Armor logs every telephone call that comes into the corporate office and there were never any telephone calls into Armor corporate from the customer regarding the issue for which customer has been dissatisfied.  Nor were there any telephone calls from customer's insurance company/agent into Armor corporate prior to the day it was finally brought to Armor corporate's attention.It still remains, had the customer contacted Armor's corporate office in lieu of trying to facilitate resolution of the issue through the salesperson, then the issue would have been immediately resolved.  As support, the minute this issue was brought to the attention of Armor corporate, it was immediately handled.  Further, on the day the issue was brought to Armor corporate's attention, the check for satisfaction of the issue was mailed on that day to customer.  Although customer said they never received the check, it was the fault of customer/ [redacted] as the check was in fact returned to Armor as undeliverable even through the address on the letter was correct.  It was through no fault of Armor that the letter was returned.  And, when the letter was returned, it was on the very next day it was received back by Armor that Armor had an employee hand deliver the check to the customer's address.This issue should be considered at RESOLVED.We do apologize for the breakdown in communication between the customer and the salesperson.  Armor will deal internally with that failure of communication.

In reply to your November 17, 2014 letter to us containing Armor Roofing's reply per their attorney.
We disagree with several statements that Armor Roofing told their attorney.
(A)the church trustee and I met today. We find no written statements from Armor about structural issues nor is any such thing mentioned in our warranty.
It seems to us that Armor would have attached limitations to the warranty if they had told BEFORE installing the roof that there were structural issues.
If we were aware of structural issues BEFORE the roof was installed we would have had another business meeting to discuss making a larger bank loan in order to have the job done correctly.
(B)notice their attorney even states we had roof problems within the first year.
(C)Armor contends the church failed to maintain the roof. Our calling Armor for service calls and their being on our roof so many times sounds to us that we were having Armor maintain our roof.
(D)we have no knowledge of any tree limbs or debris on our roof. There are not any trees nearby.
(E)Armor has NOT always been receptive to addressing the issues as they contend. I have called many times and left messages with the answering service that were not returned. I mailed two certified letters to Armor, one to their Florence office and one to their Ohio office. Both came back to the Florence post office where I was told that Armor refused to sign for either letter.
(F)if Armor's attorney had left voice mails when he called me, I would have returned his calls just as I always do if I receive a voice mail.
I spend much time on my phone as I receive many daily calls. When I am at funerals and hospitals, I am required to turn my phone off but it will still receive voice mail.
(G)I do agree with Armor's attorney about phone calls to the attorney we had for a short time. He was not returning my calls nor was he trying to handle our matter to our satisfaction.
Armor says they installed our roof correctly but three rubber roof experts, a man who sells rubber roof materials,  and a military Civil Engineer who was trained by Navy Seebees ALL believe our installation was not correct.
These five men do not even know each other nor did any one of them know what the others had said about our roof.
All of them immediately stated that there should be far more screws per section than Armor used.
The salesman stated that our roof job would never pass the inspection of a rubber roof manufacturer. He also stated that he has seen jobs by Armor that were good and some that were poor. He said we got a poor job.
At  this time we have nothing else to add.
[redacted]

Business contacted Revdex.com and stated that this matter has been resolved. The business also stated that went to the customer and again explained that their work did not cause the leak. The business states the they went above and beyond to do everything they could to make customer happy.

This is the formal response on behalf of Armor Services regarding the complaint filed by [redacted].  [redacted] has incorrectly stated several facts which will be addressed.Armor was contracted for and did complete a roof replacement on the [redacted] building...

in June of 2009.  In April 2009, at the request of [redacted], an inspection of the roofing system and ancillary building structure  was conducted and an estimate was prepared by Armor.  Armor pointed out that a new roof was appropriate and also pointed out several structural issues pertaining to the parapet and exterior walls.  [redacted], assumably due to financial constraints, decided not to have the parapet walls fixed (brick/block walls that were in need or repairs and tuckpointing) and opted just to have the roof torn-off and replaced.  Armor completed the work pursuant to the Contract and in fact, [redacted] along with the church trustees signed-off in writing that the roofing system as installed met their approval (a copy is available upon request).  On several occasions dating from approximately 1 year after the installation of the new roof, Armor has made service calls to [redacted] to repair leaks caused by tears to the roof membrane, decaying parapet block walls, and the failure of [redacted] to properly maintain the roofing system.  A membrane roof system requires periodic cleaning, maintenance, and inspection to prevent damage and to maintain the satisfactory operation of the roofing system.  It is in fact true that Armor has made several "patches" to the roofing membrane; all of those repairs were necessitated as the result of punctures to the membrane caused by debris being thrown on the membrane, people walking on the membrane, and the failure to keep the membrane clear of debris such as tree limbs and other falling objects.  Further, Armor has made repairs to the membrane and the ancillary structure due to the continued decay of the parapet block walls and further wood rot caused by water seepage within the tuckpointing/joints between blocks/bricks.  The water penetration being complained about by [redacted] was not initially caused by a faulty roof system, but by their failure to take care of another issue which has now resulted in water intrusion behind and now underneath the roofing system.  Armor has always been receptive to addressing the issues when notified by [redacted]...to Armor's detriment and unreimbursed expense.  It appears now as though [redacted] has continued issues which fall outside the scope of the original contract and warranty.Further, [redacted], legal counsel for Armor Services, has made several follow-up calls to [redacted] at [redacted] many of which have been unanswered.  Additionally, Armor is in receipt of a certified letter from [redacted]'s legal counsel and, as such, [redacted] has made several telephone calls to [redacted]'s legal counsel to address any outstanding issues and disputes...again every single call has been unanswered and unreturned.  Further, [redacted] will not breach a legal responsibility not to contact [redacted] directly as [redacted] has retained legal counsel in this matter.  Therefore, if [redacted] wants to discuss the matter any further it must either be between legal counsels, or, in the event [redacted] is not longer retained by legal counsel, then a letter from said legal counsel directly to Armor Services indicating the [redacted] is no longer represented by counsel.Respectfully,[redacted]Counsel for Armor Services

At this time, customer has not yet indicated in writing that it is no longer represented by counsel.  As soon as the customer sends written notification that it is not being represented by a lawyer, Armor will have contact directly with the customer in an attempt to resolve the matter.

I have spoken with Mr. [redacted]'s wife regarding the matter.  It was stated to the customer that had the customer contacted Armor's office (customer did not contact Armor's office at any point regarding the matter and only tried communicating to the salesperson via the salesperson's cell phone),...

the matter would have been addressed immediately.Armor has since mailed a check to satisfy the customer's complaint.  Armor has requested the customer to notify the Revdex.com that this matter has been resolved.[redacted]

Please follow the email chain set forth below.  Armor's position and proposed resolution is clearly set forth in the email to Mr. [redacted].Following is the response from Armor to the customer's email (sets forth Armor's position and proposed resolution):Mr. [redacted], As you can similarly see...

from my title, I am directly involved daily, and have been for over 20 years, in various customer-related and diverse environments, with professional, business, and consumer relationships.  I base my decisions and ultimately those of Armor Services on factual evidence and support. With that said, I did not indicate that Armor would not work with you to resolve the situation. What I indicated is that from the explanations and accounts that I had previously received from the people knowledgeable and on site, I needed to investigate further.  I did, as a matter of course, point out that we have had people accuse Armor of causing damage which in fact was pre-existing, possibly unknown to the homeowner, and not caused by Armor.  Factually, I pointed out that the three people who were on site and had first hand knowledge 100% denied causing the damage.  Further, from the operations that occurred on your property it is highly unlikely that the damage fits with the work being done and the ancillary movement of equipment, materials, and waste around the boat.  And finally, there was no evidence on the ground of fiberglass particles or tar-based scratches on the boat caused by falling shingle debris.  This morning I again discussed the incident with all three knowledgeable people who again confirmed that they deny Armor caused the damage. As an avid boater who owns 2, I do know that boating incurs accidents during docking, trailering, and use, are the damage to your boat looks eerily similar to the backs of several boats in the marina and at one point to mine.  Again, I was merely basing my telephone conversation with you this morning on the facts of our operations on site, discussions with my people on site with first hand knowledge, and my own knowledge of boating mishaps and docking damage. However, taking all into consideration and as a matter of putting this in the past, Armor is prepared to cover the repair cost provided [redacted] completes the repair in only those 2 areas on the back swim platform.  Alternatively, if you would like to get an estimate from a repair facility of your choice, please do so and forward that to me.  I will consider the estimate upon review with [redacted] of its reasonableness and, if acceptable, will directly pay your repair facility. I do, however, need the text messages emailed or texted to me so that I may internally deal with and document the incident.  Please forward them at your convenience.  And, as a point of clarification to your statement regarding the Revdex.com, Armor does more than 500 residential projects annually in addition to our multi-million dollar commercial business.  I can assure you that the 1 Revdex.com complaint annually hardly equates to a company of poor reputation and performance.  Without exclusion those complaints are from difficult customers that are requiring things of Armor well outside the bounds of reasonableness and the letter of the contract. Please respond at your convenience so we can move forward. Tim Timothy [redacted], VP and CounselArmor Services Following is the email received from the customer this morning:Tim, As you can see by my title, I am directly involved in Customer Experience with my organization.  As a multi-billion dollar investment company we pride ourselves in providing a superior Customer Experience for our clients.  Unfortunately, my experience with Armor Services has not lived up to my expectations. As I mentioned on the phone this morning, your company damaged my boat.  The roofers showed up unannounced and began work.  They asked my wife to move our SUV, but did not ask her to move the boat.  After the roof was installed, the crew left without notification and when I came out of the house I noticed my boat was damaged.  I called the sales rep immediately to report the damage.  He came out to inspect and used his finger to flick off loose fiberglass and these are his words "...you can tell that this just happened".  He called [redacted] to come back to the location to take a look at it.  [redacted] did not admit guilt, but did say he would pay for it.  The sales rep called [redacted] to find out what he wanted to do and [redacted] told him he had a friend at [redacted] that could fix it.  I agreed to use his guy because I figured he could do it at cost and your company could save money in the process.  I have been more than patient and accommodating during this entire process.  Now, I call you this morning in hopes of getting the ball rolling on getting the damage fixed and I get stonewalled.  I am told by you that  I am basically a liar who is trying to extort money from your company for damage that existed before your crew arrived.  Extremely unprofessional and frankly disappointing. The damage to my boat is probably no more than $200- $300 retail as it is cosmetic and not structural.  I am sure the cost would be even less if [redacted]'s buddy would have fixed it for him.  Now, none of that is going to happen.  I have seen the comments on Revdex.com and unfortunately I didn't cancel the contract before the roof was installed.  I have always recognized companies for admitting to their mistakes, fixing the issue and following through on their commitments.  I would have happily reported on Revdex.com that yes there was a problem, but they took responsibility to fix it, followed through on their commitments and I am a satisfied customer.  What a different picture that would paint of Armor Services than the picture that is out there now.  I will not be sending you any texts or pictures as it is my belief it would do me no good.  Your organization has not been honest or forthright with me to this point so why change now.   Thank you, Keith J [redacted], FLMI, PCS, AAPA Director; Annuity Product Specialists Customer Experience Program Manager