Ask Luke Zello

To Who It May Concern,I just receive the reply letter from Ms. [redacted].   What she fails to inform you is that she has not made any further payment to Ask Luke Zello, LLC after the initial job was completed, were informed the skylights needed to be replaced, and refused to replaced them after we told them numerous times afterwards they needed to be replaced.  Any additional plywood replaced at the owners request was agreed upon and paid by owner directly to our roofer (not through Ask Luke Zello) for the cost of the plywood and labor which would have been added to original cost anyway had it been replaced at the time the roof was replaced via Ask Luke Zello.They had our roofer come again last week open up their ceiling to “find” a leak only to discover water between the two panes of the old skylight.  Now they also want him to come back and fix the ceiling.Owner claims I never returned their phone calls yet our business has a full time receptionist with record of all calls.  She has one call from them which was returned by our roofing crew leader and I have no missed calls on my personal cell which they also have the number to. We also live in the same neighborhood and our personal/work address is well known and listed. And, our workers have been there numerous times since September including myself giving two free estimates for removing numerous trees and also for encapsulating their crawlspace. They state we did not contact them yet a text to me after their initial complaint to Revdex.com stated that we have been “very responsive.”  A copy has been sent to Revdex.com.We certainly did not up sell a new roof.  Due to the age of roof and condition of shingles we advised to replace the roof as well as the old skylights. They refused to replace the skylights.  Had they listened to our professional opinion in the first place there would not be an issue today.We will NOT reimburse Ms. [redacted] and we will no longer provide free estimates or do any more work for this customer.Sincerely,[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

[redacted]
[redacted]To Whom It May Concern,I have been out of the country doing missions work in India since December 18th and just returned to find a letter from you, to my surprise, with a complaint from one of our thousands of customers.As far as I knew, December 18th,...

the issue was resolved.We went back to his house after customer informed us that water was coming in by his skylight and resealed the skylight in question which had nothing to do with the job we were hired for and also went back pro bono a second time and reflashed and shingled again around the skylight in question.  This customer was informed PRIOR to us removing and applying new shingles that his skylights were very old and should be replaced when we replaced the roof.  Customer spoke to his wife and they decided they did not want his skylights replaced.When the customer informed us that he thought the roof still had a leak we went and inspected it again.  We advised him to wait and see if the area dries out and if it remained wet or worsened after precipitation to let us know.  When dealing with roof issues especially around old skylights sometimes it takes time to figure out where exactly water is coming in.I returned from overseas Sunday and I was informed that the roof may still have a small leak.  I sent my head  roofer yesterday (January 22) again to check the roof and address the issue around the skylight in question.  The customer needs to allow adequate time for us to respond especially when we are trying to diagnose the issue.We returned to his house multiple times pro bono prior to this “dispute” and now a third time on the very day our company receiving this letter from the Revdex.com informing us of this dispute which I am finding out for the first time.We believe the issue was fully addressed yesterday, January 22, and I trust that [redacted] will remove this disputeThe crazy thing is I assured the customer that we would make sure the roof is not leaking each time I spoke with the customer.  I also personally went to the job sight and sent workers over numerous times.Furthermore, the customer also contacted me twice wanting other estimates long after we replaced his roof.  I came over twice and give him two FREE estimates, one for multiple tree removal and the other for crawlspace remediation and encapsulation is receiving this dispute that I don’t respond or return calls is a little bit confusing.We do take pride in our work as well as our quick response time. I always return phone calls and always respond to customers which is why our business has grown exponentially.Sincerely,[redacted]
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Mr. Z[redacted] offers no solution, but merely excuses for his unacceptable work. His timeline of events does not match the facts. We called Mr. Z[redacted] in May to find and repair a roof leak. He sold us a new roof without locating or repairing the leak. When we called him again in September, after the roof leaked more, my husband went on the roof with the workers and pointed out the soft areas of the roof. Instead of looking for the real reason for the leak, Mr. Z[redacted] attempted to upsell us a skylight. At that point, my husband, Mr. Z[redacted], and his roofer, removed and inspected the skylight and Mr. Z[redacted] agreed the problem was NOT the skylight once it was clear that the flashing around the skylight had had not been replaced in May. At that time, he did not return to our house “pro-bono,” he was returning, at our request, to complete the job he was originally contracted to do. Instead of replacing all pieces of wet plywood in September when it was pointed out to them, Mr. Z[redacted]s crew replaced only a 2-ft square. He had the opportunity to replace all wet plywood when the roof shingles were off in May and again in September. In addition, a later conversation, Mr. Z[redacted] stated that he would not return to our home to make the situation right. Instead, he insisted he wouldn’t do any more investigating unless in we agreed to buy skylights from him. Most of the internal damage sustained (which necessitated a new bathroom ceiling), occurred between May and September – the time after the roof should have been correctly replaced. In December, upon opening the ceiling to make the necessary internal repairs, we noted the extremely wet plywood, complete with fungus growth and extensive water damage, that had never been addressed by Mr. Z[redacted] and his crew. See attached photos. On two additional occasions, the "head roofer" that Mr. Z[redacted] references, has returned at OUR request and finally replaced all of the wet plywood at OUR cost. These visits were not “pro-bono” - they were to complete the job that Mr. Z[redacted] was contracted to do. We have paid HIS crew for remediation of the originally contracted repair. Because of the extensive water damage after the roof was replaced, we have had to pay Mr. Z[redacted]’s crew, and an additional contractor, to correctly repair, not only the roof and the leak, but also the inside damage. The total cost of these expenditures, to date, is $[redacted] in labor and material and we are still not sure the problem is resolved. Mr. Z[redacted] has not returned any of our phone calls since September, when he told us he wouldn't come back unless we bought two new skylights. We expect Mr. Z[redacted] to take responsibility for his negligence. We ask for a reimbursement from Mr. Z[redacted], of $[redacted], because Mr. Z[redacted] did not do the job he was originally contracted to do. We paid $[redacted] to Mr. Z[redacted] in May and he did not adequately complete that work: fix the leak in the roof, replace the roof, and remove a tree that was hanging over the new roof. He failed, contractually, to meet his obligation to repair the leak. We will not be satisfied until this reimbursement is made.Sincerely,[redacted]