Austin Properties, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer 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.
Please be advised that the MLS did not state that there was a new roof on the main house. It stated "NEW roof August 2013." The portion of the house that has the old tin roof is indeed a major portion of the house as a kitchen nook is not considered outside space. The roof is also over the enclosed porch as well as the side covered porch area which is both attached to the property. We, the purchasers did not notice this huge portion of the roof before purchasing the home as indicated by the company's owner. This area was discovered during the rainfall on November 27, 2013, which was unlike any other rainfall which we have had during the season. As the owner/agent can attest to, an inspector only look at the outside of the roof to see if there is any damage. He would not have probed to see a deteriorating patched layer over tin. However, the seller and agent should have disclosed this information. The inspector not disclosing problems with the roof does not allow the seller, agent and owner/agent to mislead, misrepresent, present inaccurate, incomplete and incorrect information. The area that the agent refer to as the main roof also incurred problems with the flashing area around the chimney. Due to poor workmanship by the individual that installed this area of the roof, an additional cost was also incurred. 
 
The seller did offer to send their roofer out but not with a solution that would fix the problem. Patching an already dilapidated roof which had already been patched is hardly an offer to fix the problem. The seller's roofer indicated that he was no longer in the roofing business. He stated that he was no longer licensed, insured, or could provide a warranty. He stated that he could no longer climb on roofs due to his age and his knees. He stated he would "get some boys, young bucks" to patch the already patched roof with some other solution. He would not have been able to supervise their work based upon his statement. We advised the seller that due to the above, this would present a risk to us as homeowners. He was also the individual that had provided the poor workmanship on the property; the roofer that the seller wanted to patch the property again. 
 
A claim was filed in [redacted] County Court. On February 7, 2014, the judge ruled on a decision in favor of the seller based on misrepresentations and false statements. The seller stated that she did not know about the old tin roof and denied knowing anything about the picture shown of the patched roof as if it was not the roof from the property. The issue was not unforeseen as the seller asked that the old tin roof be patched previously as a cost cutting measure in order to sell the property. The MLS was listed fraudulently regarding the roof as well as the basement stating it had been sealed with "drylock" which also leaks. It is of my opinion that the seller and agent would have stated anything in the MLS to sell the property which had been on the market for a year. It is also of my opinion that the above information was stated in the MLS to be misleading as our agent asked for the warranty on the roof as well as the company which sealed the basement with "drylock" in which the agent stalled on numerous occasions. We were sent a list of items from a local hardware store with the words "roof" and "warranty" written on them as a tactic to assure us that the property had a new roof as the closing date was getting nearer. We now know that warranties and other information could not be sent to us as none of the work was done by a reputable company; just incompetent handymen. After the above incident, the seller indicated that the problem with the roof was common for old tin roofs; this lets us know that the seller knew of the problem previously as well as the agent. Neighbors around the property as well as the roofer which the seller sent to repair the property stated that they could tell that the patching on the roof done before the sale would not last. It is of my opinion that it is impossible for the seller and agent to not have known what individuals around them knew; individuals whom they trusted, and that this information was not stated to the seller and agent. 
 
The remedy for the roof along with the basement will cost approximately $15,000; however only the cost of the roof has been requested. It was hoped that this could be handled in an amicable manner, however it would seem that further litigation will be necessary as we also know that [redacted] Law requires disclosures of known problems as it relates to the above described defects. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: The company has an agent, [redacted], which listed a property as having a "New Roof August 2013" per the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The entire roof is not new and therefore began to leak on November 27, 2013, twenty (20) days after closing. [redacted] was contacted immediately without any return telephone calls from her. The monetary damage that this has caused is in the amount of $1,985; not to include lost of time at work, the time spent to cap off electrical components, etc. The following had to be done due to the leak coming through the electrical light fixture in the kitchen nook. This amount also includes the cost of the new roof and improper flashing around the chimney which was discovered at this time also due to poor workmanship. The danger that this could have caused along with the extra expenses incurred immediately after closing warrants this complaint.Desired Settlement: A refund of the amount paid would be the desired outcome. A receipt marked paid by a reputable company is available to present if needed.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com Case #[redacted] – Austin Properties, Inc

Response to complaint filed by [redacted]

Our company represented the Seller in the sale of their home. The Sellers’ agent commented that there was a new roof on the main portion of the home in the MLS. The main house did have a new roof as verified by a home inspector. A side porch area had a tin roof which was not part of the main house and was not new as evidenced by visual inspection by the Purchasers, the Purchasers’ Agent and the third party home inspector. The Purchasers had the home inspected by a home inspector of their choice and the report did not find any problems or leaks in any portion of the roof, new or old. The home closed on November 7, 2013.
Twenty days after closing (Nov. 27th) and after torrential rains, the tin roof leaked. The Purchasers called my agent (Seller Agent) and she returned the calls to the Purchasers’ Agent as is protocol as well as notified the Sellers. The Purchasers also directly contacted the Sellers. The Sellers offered to send their roofer to fix the problem. The Purchasers refused that offer and then proceeded to file a claim against the Sellers in court for the cost of damages. On February 7, 2014, the [redacted] County Court ruled in favor of the Seller, our client. The case was dismissed.
Unfortunately, unforeseen issues do occur after one has closed and moved into a home. [redacted] Law requires Agents to disclose known material adverse facts pertaining to the property. Neither the Sellers nor my firm knew of any problems. Inspections are necessary to identify present problems and potential defects, but in this case, there was no evidence of any leaks or problems with the roof(s) prior to closing on Nov. 7, 2013.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.

Please be advised that the MLS did not state that there was a new roof on the main house. It stated "NEW roof August 2013." The portion of the house that has the old tin roof is indeed a major portion of the house as a kitchen nook is not considered outside space. The roof is also over the enclosed porch as well as the side covered porch area which is both attached to the property. We, the purchasers did not notice this huge portion of the roof before purchasing the home as indicated by the company's owner. This area was discovered during the rainfall on November 27, 2013, which was unlike any other rainfall which we have had during the season. As the owner/agent can attest to, an inspector only look at the outside of the roof to see if there is any damage. He would not have probed to see a deteriorating patched layer over tin. However, the seller and agent should have disclosed this information. The inspector not disclosing problems with the roof does not allow the seller, agent and owner/agent to mislead, misrepresent, present inaccurate, incomplete and incorrect information. The area that the agent refer to as the main roof also incurred problems with the flashing area around the chimney. Due to poor workmanship by the individual that installed this area of the roof, an additional cost was also incurred.