We believe that the Customer was confused as to the scope of the warranty he received when he purchased a [redacted] gutter system, which is the only one-piece covered gutter system on the market, from [redacted] of [redacted] , Inc(“ [redacted] ”) Unfortunately, we had a difficult time connecting with him to discuss the situation When the Customer received his [redacted] gutter system, [redacted] issued a no clog warranty This warranty guarantees that water will remain free-flowing through the [redacted] gutter system If water does not remain free-flowing, [redacted] will clean the [redacted] gutters at no cost to the customer In this matter, the Customer has had an issue with wasp at his home and has requested a number of service calls related to this issue When we previously responded to the service request, we found no clogs nor any leaks Thus, the warranty was not applicable.In order to resolve this matter, the General Manager personally went to the Customer’s home Our General Manager explained that we do not do wasp or insect inspections/exterminations.But should the gutter system clog do to wasp nests in the gutter, [redacted] will remove them at no costs to the Customer Accordingly, [redacted] has and will continue to honor its warranties[redacted] does many things in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligations to do so As noted above, [redacted] has honored its contractual obligations Yet, the Customer has requested that we take down the [redacted] gutter system and install a type of open gutter system [redacted] has agreed to do so The Customer was happy with this resolution Thus, [redacted] considers this matter closed
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/07/30) */ LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") apologized for any frustration or inconvenience sustained by our Customer due to the delay in responding to his service requestHowever, the weather in the [redacted] has seriously impacted operations causing the delayWe now have had a chance to investigate the claim made by the Customer complaining that water is supposedly backing up from the LeafGuard gutter system causing water damage to the soffitsThe damage to the soffits is not due to the gutter system but due to a roof leakThe roof leak is two feet further up the roof (i.eway from the gutter system)This is the same location where the Customer is experiencing water damage to his soffitsWe showed the leak to the Customer, and he agreed that it is a roof leak, and not the gutter system, as the source of his problemsAccordingly, we consider this matter closed Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2015/07/31) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc(“LeafGuard”) has been working with the Customer for over a year now regarding his concern about icing/icicles The contract expressly advises that there could be icing/icicles, which may be severe at time As the contract further states, the icing/icicles are typically formed due to other factors versus as a direct result of the gutter system The Customer acknowledged that the provision was in the contract Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard installed heat cables to address the issues LeafGuard cannot connect the heat cables because in most circumstances an electrician is needed and LeafGuard has no electricians on staff At that time (February 2015), the Customer agreed that LeafGuard would install the cables at no cost to the Customer and the Customer would hire the electrician However, there might have been some confusion regarding this original agreement So, again in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has agreed to part of the cost for the electrician The Customer has agreed to this arrangement Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/05/28) */ LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") understands that the Customer might be frustrated regarding his expressed concerns with the LeafGuard gutter system that was installed on his home in January Nevertheless, there was either miscommunications or a misunderstanding regarding what LeafGuard is legally obligated to do and what it had already agreed to do, as will be explained belowNevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard agrees to the Customer's request for a refund of $1,of the purchase price that the Customer previously paid for the installation of a LeafGuard gutter system In his Revdex.com complaint, the Customer state that, "LeafGuard gave us a lifelong guaranty", implying that no matter what LeafGuard would take care of any problem that a customer thinks is related to his LeafGuard gutter systemThis is not accurateLeafGuard did give the Customer a two-year workmanship warranty if there is problem with the LeafGuard gutter within two (2) years of the install dateWhen the Customer did make his claim, it was within the two-year workmanship warranty periodSo, LeafGuard was working with him to rectify any problem that was truly associated with the LeafGuard gutter systemLeafGuard had even proposed a fix action to the CustomerHowever, before he responded back to the proposal, he had already had the LeafGuard gutter system replaced and then he ultimately made this Revdex.com complaint In addition to the two-year workmanship warranty, LeafGuard did provide limited, life-time no clog warrantyWith this warranty, LeafGuard agrees to service the LeafGuard gutter system if it ever become clogged, i.ethe water does not remain free flowingHowever, this warranty does provide additional coverage for any workmanship issues that occur after two (2) yearsLikewise, the manufacturer's limited lifetime paint finish warranty does not cover workmanship issues after two (2) yearsPotentially, the Customer was confusing the no clog and limited paint finish warranties duration with the more limited workmanship warranty period Despite the confusion that might exist with the warranties, the primary issue of this matter is whether LeafGuard is required to refund money to the customerThe short answer is noAs noted above, LeafGuard was required to fix workmanship issues, which it had made a proposal to do soYet, instead of fixing the issue (agreeing to the proposal), the Customer decided to remove the LeafGuard gutter system and to have a different gutter system installedObviously, he had every right to do soBut, this does not automatically mean that LeafGuard is required to refund money for this choiceThis is the same as asking a car dealership to refund a purchase price for a car purchased two (2) years ago because the individual wants to buy a different car If at all possible, LeafGuard tries to make every customer satisfied with his/her LeafGuard experienceIt will even do things in the interest of customer service, when it has no legal obligation to do so--as it is agreeing to do in this matterAccordingly, LeafGuard is agreeing to the Customer's request for the refund of $1,500, even though there is no legal obligation for it to do soThus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2015/05/29) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/08/10) */ Based on our review of Customer's complaint, information in LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc.'s job folder and prior dealings with the Customer, LeafGuard's ("LeafGuard") provides its response to the Customer's Revdex.com's complaintIf we understand the Customer's complaint, there are two general issues: (1) an alleged improper installation of the LeafGuard gutter system and (2) interior damage related to the alleged improper installationWe have thoroughly address each issue belowFor the reasons stated below, LeafGuard is not responsible for any of the issues raised in Customer's compliantNevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has offered to replace the altered portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that is on the rear of the homeAccordingly, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved In his complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter was not installed up to codeUpon investigating the installation, the General Manager and Production Manager found that the gutters had indeed been installed to code, although someone had altered the original gutter system that LeafGuard installedAlthough the Customer claims in his Complaint that the gutter system was just the way LeafGuard installed it, there is clear evidence that the gutter system had been alteredObviously, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for someone else, whomever that may be, altering the LeafGuard gutter system Additionally, in his Complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter system was responsible for interior damageThis is incorrectWhat was the most likely source of the interior damage is problems with the roof and not the LeafGuard gutter systemOne of the first things we found when investigating this matter was a large hole in the Customer's roof deckThis hole was approximately two (2) feet from the edge of roof, i.eaway from the gutter systemIf there was a problem with the gutter system, the problem with the roof deck would have been much closer to the edge of the roofAnother problem with the roof deals with the Customer's vent pipe(s)We found that they were not properly flashedBetween the hole in the roof deck and the improperly flashed vent pipe(s), any water that penetrated into the interior of the home, causing interior damage, would have come from these sources and not associated with the gutter system Contrary to the Customer's Complaint, LeafGuard did not "agree" to have a roofer come to the Customer's home to give him an estimate for the interior damageWe did not do so because LeafGuard never had any responsible for the roof problems and/or interior damage due to the roof problemsAccordingly, LeafGuard has not and will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage While LeafGuard will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard does agree to replace the portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that was altered by someone elseEven when LeafGuard has no legal obligation to do so, it does things in the interest of customer service, as it agreeing to do so in this matterLeafGuard believes that this is extremely fair under the true facts of this matterThus, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved
Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (2000, 6, 2015/06/30) */ MrWilliams called and stated that the business sent him his dinner card and the $ [redacted] CardHe stated that his complaint is RESOLVED and that he couldn't have done it without the help of the Revdex.comConsumer is 100% satisfiedCase Closed as RESOLVED
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 7, 2015/11/20) */ Respectfully, LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") disagrees with the Customer's assessment of her situationIn her complaint, the Customer alleges that LeafGuard caused damage to her roof when LeafGuard installed a LeafGuard gutter system two years ago and that LeafGuard has not been responsive to herNeither allegation is accurateAdditionally, the Customer misunderstands the warranties she received when she purchased the LeafGuard gutter systemWe will address each item below The damage to roof that the Customer now complains of preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the Customer's homeActually, it is LeafGuard's understanding that the roof damage probably preexisted the Customer owning the homeAs part of its efforts to assist the Customer with her problem, LeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager consulted with various roofers to determine what the source of the Customer's problem isWe have been advised that rafter tails of the home had been cutBased on gathering other information, the roofers concluded that a previous homeowner had a roof installed, but the roofer who installed the roof did not do a good jobThe prior roofer installed the shingles to overhang off the roofIn attempt to correct the problem, the prior roofer used a saw to cut back the shingles before flashing the homeWhile doing so, the prior roofer cut through the rafter tails of the home and then flashed over the workThus, the cut rafter tails could not be seen by anyone, including the inspector who the Customer had hired to inspect the home before purchaseAdditionally, the prior roofer never pulled the required permitAs such, the City of Lakewood's building inspector never had a chance to inspect the workOnce the rafter tails were cut, they became compromised and were going to fail at some point time In addition to causing the compromised rafter tails, the prior roofer also performed other work incorrectlyLeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager did not see any visible felt paper and/or any type of underlayment to protect the deckingOver time, this has allowed water to seep under the shingle, causing additional deterioration of the rafter tailsAdditionally, the undersized and inadequate nails to attach the fascia board to the rafter tails were usedAll of these factors contributed to the fascia board falling off the homeThe Customer has been advised of this deficiencies with her roof In her complaint, the Customer indicates that the LeafGuard gutter system is failing off the homeMore correctly, the fascia board is falling off the homeThe LeafGuard gutter system is attached to the fascia boardThe fascia board is falling off because that continuing degeneration of the compromised rafter tailsWhen LeafGuard sold and installed the LeafGuard gutter system, there was no way we could have foreseen that the rafter tails had been compromised and cut through Regarding the lack of communication, both of LeafGuard's senior managers have been involved trying to assist the Customer with her problemsAs noted above, LeafGuard personnel have met with the Customer, her sister, roofers and the insurance adjusterFurthermore, there have been numerous communications between the Customer and her sister with LeafGuard personnelAdditionally, LeafGuard has fully cooperated with the Customer and her insurance company to assist in the resolution of the hail claimLeafGuard has provided an estimate to the insurance company for replacing the LeafGuard gutter system that was damaged by hail and not due to any actions or inaction on the part of LeafGuardLeafGuard has been recently advised that the Customer was going to replace the hail damaged LeafGuard gutter system with another type of gutter system In her complaint, the Customer states that LeafGuard was not living up to its "lifetime warranty"As an initial point, LeafGuard has fully lived up to all of its warranty obligationsYet, the Customer is confused regarding the scope of warranty she receivedIt is not an unlimited warrantyThe only "lifetime" warranty that she received from LeafGuard was a lifetime "no-clog" warrantyIf at any time the LeafGuard gutter system becomes clogged, i.ethe water does not remain free-flowing, LeafGuard will clean the gutter at no cost to the CustomerIn addition to receiving the lifetime no-clog warranty from LeafGuard, the Customer also received a limited lifetime paint finish warranty from the manufacturerRegarding potential issues of workmanship, like she now complaints of, the Customer only received a two-year warrantyThe contract is very clear regarding the warranties that were provided to the Customer LeafGuard does many thing in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligation to do soHowever, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for every potential problem with a home just because it installed a gutter system on that homeThis is the situation that we have in this matterThe problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the homeThe Customer's personally selected roofer has said as muchThus, LeafGuard respectfully declines the Customer's demand to refund the amount the Customer paid for the LeafGuard gutter system or to remove all of the Leaf Guard gutter system, repair the roof, install new fascia boards and new gutters at no expense to the Customer Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 9, 2015/12/04) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) please see attached.In responseto the LeafGuard Nov 20, In the first paragraph; We did not say that LeafGuard caused damage to our roofWe said the gutters were pulling away from the roof and were still attached to the fascia boardsSince the gutters were still attached to the fascia boards, why weren't they attached to the rafter tails? Were the screws too small? The gutters should have been attached to the roofNot just the fascia boards While it may not have been possible for LeafGuard to anticipate possible roofing installation issues which may not have been evident when the LeafGuard gutters were installed, wouldn't the fascia have been exposed revealing the undersize and inaccurate nailsLeafGuard, as part of the pre installation preparation process in light of their extensive expertise should have recognized this and provided an opportunity for us to solve this issueLeafGuard, in neglecting to inform us of the concerns with the undersized and inadequate nails at installation, should be required to reimburse us for the original gutters LeafGuard states they responded to us in a timely mannerThey did notSeveral calls had to be made including calls to the Corporate office; before we received a return call from the General Manager If LeafGuard had used the appropriate size nails the gutters should have been attached to the roof not just the fascia boards Per a roof inspection done Oct X XXXX by a roof broker he states"Gutter screws did not hit the rafter tails and have pulled the fascia and gutters away from the roof" In regards to the lack of communication issueWe made our initial call to LeafGuard on Sept 25th without any response for two weeksIt took six or seven more calls before we had any response whatsoeverYes, after we finally had someone return the calls we did have the production manager come to the houseHe said he had never seen anything like this (because the gutters were hanging off the roof by several inches) and it wasn't LeafGuard's fault He then referred a preferred contractor roofer to usThe roofer gave us an estimate to repair the roof and guttersThe roofer and production manager also met with our claims adjuster from State FarmAfter several requests the production manager finally gave us an estimate to repair the hail damaged guttersHowever, the insurance has requested a price per square foot and still has had no response as of 11/27/In fact, State Farm Insurance did not receive any paperwork from LeafGuardWe repeatedly called and requested they email us the information so we could get it to our insurance In the last paragraph of LeafGuard's response it says "The problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the homeThe Customer's personally selected roofer has said as much"This is not TrueOur roofer did not say anything to that effect We respectfully request a full refund for the original gutters Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 13, 2015/12/20) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) We still feel LeafGuard has done wrong regarding the gutters and they have not been helpfulIn fact, State Farm is still waiting for LeafGuard to provide information so our claim can be completely finished We have had two home inspections and there was not any mention of roof problems We do not consider this matter closed We will not be satisfied without a full refund from LeafGuard Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 16, 2015/12/28) */ LeafGuard understand that the Customer might have a different perspective than LeafGuard with regard to whom is responsible for the fascia board falling off her former homeNevertheless, as has been thoroughly explained, LeafGuard did not cause the problems with the roof and/or rafter tailsThese problems preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the homeThus, LeafGuard is not responsible for paying for the fascia board falling off the home As to LeafGuard assisting with the Customer's insurance claim, the Customer is incorrect that LeafGuard has failed to communication with her insurer, State Farm, for the hail damage claim to the LeafGuard gutter systemLeafGuard has communicated with State Farm and provided the information State Farm requested in its effort to adjust her hail damage claimLeafGuard has attached an email thread between State Farm and LeafGuard's General Manager clearly showing that the information was provided over a month agoActually, LeafGuard's email response was the second time that LeafGuard provided the information to State Farm; it had faxed the information previouslyIf there has been a delay with the claim not being finalized, it is not due to the fault of LeafGuard
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/07/01) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc(LeafGuard") feels like there has been much confusion and miscommunication regarding this complaintLeafGuard disagrees with the Customer's characterizations of the LeafGuard in his Revdex.com complaintLeafGuard has
been extremely responsive of the Customer's concerns and diligently worked with him and his contractor to assist with the insurance claim that the Customer made for hail damage to his home, including damage to the LeafGuard gutter system that was installed last yearAfter the insurance situation was resolved, LeafGuard completed all work it was contractually obligated to do so, plus additional workThis work was completed last weekThe Customer was satisfied with the completed workAccordingly, we consider this matter closed
As an example of how LeafGuard has been responsive to the Customer, we want to provide a highlights how we have assisted with the insurance claimAs noted above, there was a hail storm in the Denver area damaging the Customer's gutteringBecause an insurance claim was required, LeafGuard's General Manager has been dealing with the Customer on the replacementThe Customer turned over all negotiations and communications regarding the hail storm repairs to his contractorThis has contributed to some of the issues of confusion and miscommunicationIt was only within the last few weeks that LeafGuard received authorization a week ago to replace the guttersUpon getting the authorization, we scheduled the work and completed it last weekSo, again, we consider this matter closed
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/07/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I concur with Leaf Guard that this matter is closed as the gutters were installed on June 23, I have no doubt that Leaf Guard disagrees with the characterizations levied by the customerAlthough Leave Guard did respond to information surrounding our hail damage, they did not assist with the insurance claim, our contractor communicated with our insurance company exclusivelyAs was confirmed to me my ** *** *** in a phone conversationI concur that I authorized my contractor to speak on my behalf, however, local Leaf Guard and Corporate Leaf Guard *** *** *** stated they would not and did not work with contractors (agents) due to issues collection money...the homeowner would pay when a contractor would notThat said, eventually, Leaf Guard worked with my contractor
In Leaf Guard's comments they mention, "plus additional work."Although Leaf Guard does not mention the "additional work", it was to rectify issues we had addressed a year agoWith no response from Leaf GuardThese issues were included in the Customer's Original Complain portion of this complaint
Additionally, I concur there has been much confusion and miscommunication; however, I believe it has more to do with the loss of our file at the local Leaf GuardWe have been told by the local office and the corporate office in Texas that, "we fell through the cracks during a time change and employee overturn." In my opinion, poor customer service, and surely no follto the letter of concern we mailed September
Finally, and again, I do consider the case with Leaf Guard closedI consider the case closed mainly to the personal attention ** *** *** took in our caseWe believe the Leaf Guard product to be a good product, but woe to the customer in need of follcustomer support
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2015/07/10) */
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/01) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") respectfully disagrees with the Customer's complaint in that it failed to communicate with the Customer's chosen general contractor, *** *** regarding why the delay in installing a
replacement LeafGuard gutter systemAs discussed below, the delay was caused by another subcontractor, the rooferOn a number of occasions, LeafGuard advised *** *** why it could not install the replacement gutter system and tried to communicate directly with the roofer to explain what needed to occur to allow the installationEventually, after a meeting by all of the parties, which LeafGuard had requested on a number of occasions, both *** *** and the roofer finally understood the problemsThis meeting occurred on the same date as the Customer filed his complaintSubsequent to the meeting, the roofer eventually fixed the problems that prevented the installation of the replacement gutter systemAccordingly, LeafGuard can now install the replacement LeafGuard gutter systemIt is scheduled to be installed tomorrow
Previously, LeafGuard installed a LeafGuard gutter system on the Customer's homeHowever, the LeafGuard gutter system was damaged by hail and had to be replacedIn addition to the LeafGuard gutter system being damaged, other portions of the home were also damaged by the homeThus, the Customer retained a general contractor, *** *** to be his agent overseeing all of the repairs to the home
Prior to LeafGuard being involved in this project, the Customer had already retained *** *** LeafGuard was advised to communicate directly with *** *** which it didIt was LeafGuard's understanding that the Customer wanted all his communication regarding the project to come directly from *** *** LeafGuard does not know what *** *** told to the Customer regarding the delayNevertheless, LeafGuard did thoroughly communicate the issues causing the delay to the Customer's representative, *** ***
When LeafGuard first attempted to install the replacement LeafGuard gutter system, it found issues with the roof that prevented the installationAs an example, the roofer shingled over the fasciaBefore LeafGuard could install the LeafGuard gutter system, the roofer needed to remove the lower two rows of shingles, flash the house and install fascia boards that were removed from the back of the houseThese were simple fixes and could have been accomplished sooner if the roofer understood the issues soonerBut, LeafGuard was prevented from speaking with the roofer, and the general contractor did not initially understand as to why the problems with the roof caused the delay in the installation of the LeafGuard gutter systemYet, once LeafGuard had an opportunity to truly explain the issues, all understoodThis is how we were finally able to move the process along
In his complaint, the Customer's desired resolution was to have the replacement LeafGuard gutter system installedWith it being installed tomorrow, LeafGuard considers this matter closed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/30) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. ("LeafGuard") apologized for any frustration or inconvenience sustained by our Customer due to the delay in responding to his service request. However, the weather in the [redacted] has seriously impacted operations...
causing the delay. We now have had a chance to investigate the claim made by the Customer complaining that water is supposedly backing up from the LeafGuard gutter system causing water damage to the soffits. The damage to the soffits is not due to the gutter system but due to a roof leak. The roof leak is two feet further up the roof (i.e. way from the gutter system). This is the same location where the Customer is experiencing water damage to his soffits. We showed the leak to the Customer, and he agreed that it is a roof leak, and not the gutter system, as the source of his problems. Accordingly, we consider this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/07/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. (“LeafGuard”) has been working with the Customer for over a year now regarding his concern about icing/icicles. The contract expressly advises that there could be icing/icicles, which may be severe at time. As the contract further states, the...
icing/icicles are typically formed due to other factors versus as a direct result of the gutter system. The Customer acknowledged that the provision was in the contract. Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard installed heat cables to address the issues. LeafGuard cannot connect the heat cables because in most circumstances an electrician is needed and LeafGuard has no electricians on staff. At that time (February 2015), the Customer agreed that LeafGuard would install the cables at no cost to the Customer and the Customer would hire the electrician. However, there might have been some confusion regarding this original agreement. So, again in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has agreed to part of the cost for the electrician. The Customer has agreed to this arrangement. Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed.
We believe that the Customer was confused as to the scope of the warranty he received when he purchased a [redacted] gutter system, which is the only one-piece covered gutter system on the market, from [redacted] of [redacted], Inc. (“[redacted]”). Unfortunately, we had a difficult time connecting...
with him to discuss the situation. When the Customer received his [redacted] gutter system, [redacted] issued a no clog warranty. This warranty guarantees that water will remain free-flowing through the [redacted] gutter system. If water does not remain free-flowing, [redacted] will clean the [redacted] gutters at no cost to the customer. In this matter, the Customer has had an issue with wasp at his home and has requested a number of service calls related to this issue. When we previously responded to the service request, we found no clogs nor any leaks. Thus, the warranty was not applicable.In order to resolve this matter, the General Manager personally went to the Customer’s home. Our General Manager explained that we do not do wasp or insect inspections/exterminations.But should the gutter system clog do to wasp nests in the gutter, [redacted] will remove them at no costs to the Customer. Accordingly, [redacted] has and will continue to honor its warranties.[redacted] does many things in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligations to do so. As noted above, [redacted] has honored its contractual obligations. Yet, the Customer has requested that we take down the [redacted] gutter system and install a type of open gutter system. [redacted] has agreed to do so. The Customer was happy with this resolution. Thus, [redacted] considers this matter closed.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/11/20) */
Respectfully, LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. ("LeafGuard") disagrees with the Customer's assessment of her situation. In her complaint, the Customer alleges that LeafGuard caused damage to her roof when LeafGuard installed a LeafGuard gutter...
system two years ago and that LeafGuard has not been responsive to her. Neither allegation is accurate. Additionally, the Customer misunderstands the warranties she received when she purchased the LeafGuard gutter system. We will address each item below.
The damage to roof that the Customer now complains of preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the Customer's home. Actually, it is LeafGuard's understanding that the roof damage probably preexisted the Customer owning the home. As part of its efforts to assist the Customer with her problem, LeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager consulted with various roofers to determine what the source of the Customer's problem is. We have been advised that rafter tails of the home had been cut. Based on gathering other information, the roofers concluded that a previous homeowner had a roof installed, but the roofer who installed the roof did not do a good job. The prior roofer installed the shingles to overhang off the roof. In attempt to correct the problem, the prior roofer used a saw to cut back the shingles before flashing the home. While doing so, the prior roofer cut through the rafter tails of the home and then flashed over the work. Thus, the cut rafter tails could not be seen by anyone, including the inspector who the Customer had hired to inspect the home before purchase. Additionally, the prior roofer never pulled the required permit. As such, the City of Lakewood's building inspector never had a chance to inspect the work. Once the rafter tails were cut, they became compromised and were going to fail at some point time.
In addition to causing the compromised rafter tails, the prior roofer also performed other work incorrectly. LeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager did not see any visible felt paper and/or any type of underlayment to protect the decking. Over time, this has allowed water to seep under the shingle, causing additional deterioration of the rafter tails. Additionally, the undersized and inadequate nails to attach the fascia board to the rafter tails were used. All of these factors contributed to the fascia board falling off the home. The Customer has been advised of this deficiencies with her roof.
In her complaint, the Customer indicates that the LeafGuard gutter system is failing off the home. More correctly, the fascia board is falling off the home. The LeafGuard gutter system is attached to the fascia board. The fascia board is falling off because that continuing degeneration of the compromised rafter tails. When LeafGuard sold and installed the LeafGuard gutter system, there was no way we could have foreseen that the rafter tails had been compromised and cut through.
Regarding the lack of communication, both of LeafGuard's senior managers have been involved trying to assist the Customer with her problems. As noted above, LeafGuard personnel have met with the Customer, her sister, roofers and the insurance adjuster. Furthermore, there have been numerous communications between the Customer and her sister with LeafGuard personnel. Additionally, LeafGuard has fully cooperated with the Customer and her insurance company to assist in the resolution of the hail claim. LeafGuard has provided an estimate to the insurance company for replacing the LeafGuard gutter system that was damaged by hail and not due to any actions or inaction on the part of LeafGuard. LeafGuard has been recently advised that the Customer was going to replace the hail damaged LeafGuard gutter system with another type of gutter system.
In her complaint, the Customer states that LeafGuard was not living up to its "lifetime warranty". As an initial point, LeafGuard has fully lived up to all of its warranty obligations. Yet, the Customer is confused regarding the scope of warranty she received. It is not an unlimited warranty. The only "lifetime" warranty that she received from LeafGuard was a lifetime "no-clog" warranty. If at any time the LeafGuard gutter system becomes clogged, i.e. the water does not remain free-flowing, LeafGuard will clean the gutter at no cost to the Customer. In addition to receiving the lifetime no-clog warranty from LeafGuard, the Customer also received a limited lifetime paint finish warranty from the manufacturer. Regarding potential issues of workmanship, like she now complaints of, the Customer only received a two-year warranty. The contract is very clear regarding the warranties that were provided to the Customer.
LeafGuard does many thing in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligation to do so. However, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for every potential problem with a home just because it installed a gutter system on that home. This is the situation that we have in this matter. The problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the home. The Customer's personally selected roofer has said as much. Thus, LeafGuard respectfully declines the Customer's demand to refund the amount the Customer paid for the LeafGuard gutter system or to remove all of the Leaf Guard gutter system, repair the roof, install new fascia boards and new gutters at no expense to the Customer.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2015/12/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
please see attached.In response... to the LeafGuard Nov 20, 2015
In the first paragraph; We did not say that LeafGuard caused damage to our roof. We said the gutters were pulling away from the roof and were still attached to the fascia boards. Since the gutters were still attached to the fascia boards, why weren't they attached to the rafter tails? Were the screws too small?
The gutters should have been attached to the roof. Not just the fascia boards
While it may not have been possible for LeafGuard to anticipate possible roofing installation issues which may not have been evident when the LeafGuard gutters were installed, wouldn't the fascia have been exposed revealing the undersize and inaccurate nails. LeafGuard, as part of the pre installation preparation process in light of their extensive expertise should have recognized this and provided an opportunity for us to solve this issue. LeafGuard, in neglecting to inform us of the concerns with the undersized and inadequate nails at installation, should be required to reimburse us for the original gutters.
LeafGuard states they responded to us in a timely manner. They did not. Several calls had to be made including calls to the Corporate office; before we received a return call from the General Manager.
If LeafGuard had used the appropriate size nails the gutters should have been attached to the roof not just the fascia boards.
Per a roof inspection done Oct X XXXX by a roof broker he states.... "Gutter screws did not hit the rafter tails and have pulled the fascia and gutters away from the roof".
In regards to the lack of communication issue. We made our initial call to LeafGuard on Sept 25th without any response for two weeks. It took six or seven more calls before we had any response whatsoever. Yes, after we finally had someone return the calls we did have the production manager come to the house. He said he had never seen anything like this (because the gutters were hanging off the roof by several inches) and it wasn't LeafGuard's fault.
He then referred a preferred contractor roofer to us. The roofer gave us an estimate to repair the roof and gutters. The roofer and production manager also met with our claims adjuster from State Farm. After several requests the production manager finally gave us an estimate to repair the hail damaged gutters. However, the insurance has requested a price per square foot and still has had no response as of 11/27/15. In fact, State Farm Insurance did not receive any paperwork from LeafGuard. We repeatedly called and requested they email us the information so we could get it to our insurance.
In the last paragraph of LeafGuard's response it says "The problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the home. The Customer's personally selected roofer has said as much". This is not True. Our roofer did not say anything to that effect.
We respectfully request a full refund for the original gutters.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 13, 2015/12/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We still feel LeafGuard has done wrong regarding the gutters and they have not been helpful. In fact, State Farm is still waiting for LeafGuard to provide information so our claim can be completely finished.
We have had two home inspections and there was not any mention of roof problems.
We do not consider this matter closed.
We will not be satisfied without a full refund from LeafGuard.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2015/12/28) */
LeafGuard understand that the Customer might have a different perspective than LeafGuard with regard to whom is responsible for the fascia board falling off her former home. Nevertheless, as has been thoroughly explained, LeafGuard did not cause the problems with the roof and/or rafter tails. These problems preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the home. Thus, LeafGuard is not responsible for paying for the fascia board falling off the home.
As to LeafGuard assisting with the Customer's insurance claim, the Customer is incorrect that LeafGuard has failed to communication with her insurer, State Farm, for the hail damage claim to the LeafGuard gutter system. LeafGuard has communicated with State Farm and provided the information State Farm requested in its effort to adjust her hail damage claim. LeafGuard has attached an email thread between State Farm and LeafGuard's General Manager clearly showing that the information was provided over a month ago. Actually, LeafGuard's email response was the second time that LeafGuard provided the information to State Farm; it had faxed the information previously. If there has been a delay with the claim not being finalized, it is not due to the fault of LeafGuard.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/10) */
Based on our review of Customer's complaint, information in LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc.'s job folder and prior dealings with the Customer, LeafGuard's ("LeafGuard") provides its response to the Customer's Revdex.com's complaint. If...
we understand the Customer's complaint, there are two general issues: (1) an alleged improper installation of the LeafGuard gutter system and (2) interior damage related to the alleged improper installation. We have thoroughly address each issue below. For the reasons stated below, LeafGuard is not responsible for any of the issues raised in Customer's compliant. Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has offered to replace the altered portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that is on the rear of the home. Accordingly, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved.
In his complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter was not installed up to code. Upon investigating the installation, the General Manager and Production Manager found that the gutters had indeed been installed to code, although someone had altered the original gutter system that LeafGuard installed. Although the Customer claims in his Complaint that the gutter system was just the way LeafGuard installed it, there is clear evidence that the gutter system had been altered. Obviously, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for someone else, whomever that may be, altering the LeafGuard gutter system.
Additionally, in his Complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter system was responsible for interior damage. This is incorrect. What was the most likely source of the interior damage is problems with the roof and not the LeafGuard gutter system. One of the first things we found when investigating this matter was a large hole in the Customer's roof deck. This hole was approximately two (2) feet from the edge of roof, i.e. away from the gutter system. If there was a problem with the gutter system, the problem with the roof deck would have been much closer to the edge of the roof. Another problem with the roof deals with the Customer's vent pipe(s). We found that they were not properly flashed. Between the hole in the roof deck and the improperly flashed vent pipe(s), any water that penetrated into the interior of the home, causing interior damage, would have come from these sources and not associated with the gutter system.
Contrary to the Customer's Complaint, LeafGuard did not "agree" to have a roofer come to the Customer's home to give him an estimate for the interior damage. We did not do so because LeafGuard never had any responsible for the roof problems and/or interior damage due to the roof problems. Accordingly, LeafGuard has not and will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage.
While LeafGuard will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard does agree to replace the portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that was altered by someone else. Even when LeafGuard has no legal obligation to do so, it does things in the interest of customer service, as it agreeing to do so in this matter. LeafGuard believes that this is extremely fair under the true facts of this matter. Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 6, 2015/06/30) */
Mr. Williams called and stated that the business sent him his dinner card and the $200.00 [redacted] Card. He stated that his complaint is RESOLVED and that he couldn't have done it without the help of the Revdex.com. Consumer is 100% satisfied. Case Closed as...
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/28) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. ("LeafGuard") understands that the Customer might be frustrated regarding his expressed concerns with the LeafGuard gutter system that was installed on his home in January 2013. Nevertheless, there was either...
miscommunications or a misunderstanding regarding what LeafGuard is legally obligated to do and what it had already agreed to do, as will be explained below. Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard agrees to the Customer's request for a refund of $1,500 of the purchase price that the Customer previously paid for the installation of a LeafGuard gutter system.
In his Revdex.com complaint, the Customer state that, "LeafGuard gave us a lifelong guaranty", implying that no matter what LeafGuard would take care of any problem that a customer thinks is related to his LeafGuard gutter system. This is not accurate. LeafGuard did give the Customer a two-year workmanship warranty if there is problem with the LeafGuard gutter within two (2) years of the install date. When the Customer did make his claim, it was within the two-year workmanship warranty period. So, LeafGuard was working with him to rectify any problem that was truly associated with the LeafGuard gutter system. LeafGuard had even proposed a fix action to the Customer. However, before he responded back to the proposal, he had already had the LeafGuard gutter system replaced and then he ultimately made this Revdex.com complaint.
In addition to the two-year workmanship warranty, LeafGuard did provide limited, life-time no clog warranty. With this warranty, LeafGuard agrees to service the LeafGuard gutter system if it ever become clogged, i.e. the water does not remain free flowing. However, this warranty does provide additional coverage for any workmanship issues that occur after two (2) years. Likewise, the manufacturer's limited lifetime paint finish warranty does not cover workmanship issues after two (2) years. Potentially, the Customer was confusing the no clog and limited paint finish warranties duration with the more limited workmanship warranty period.
Despite the confusion that might exist with the warranties, the primary issue of this matter is whether LeafGuard is required to refund money to the customer. The short answer is no. As noted above, LeafGuard was required to fix workmanship issues, which it had made a proposal to do so. Yet, instead of fixing the issue (agreeing to the proposal), the Customer decided to remove the LeafGuard gutter system and to have a different gutter system installed. Obviously, he had every right to do so. But, this does not automatically mean that LeafGuard is required to refund money for this choice. This is the same as asking a car dealership to refund a purchase price for a car purchased two (2) years ago because the individual wants to buy a different car.
If at all possible, LeafGuard tries to make every customer satisfied with his/her LeafGuard experience. It will even do things in the interest of customer service, when it has no legal obligation to do so--as it is agreeing to do in this matter. Accordingly, LeafGuard is agreeing to the Customer's request for the refund of $1,500, even though there is no legal obligation for it to do so. Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/05/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
We believe that the Customer was confused as to the scope of the warranty he received when he purchased a [redacted] gutter system, which is the only one-piece covered gutter system on the market, from [redacted] of [redacted] , Inc(“ [redacted] ”) Unfortunately, we had a difficult time connecting with him to discuss the situation When the Customer received his [redacted] gutter system, [redacted] issued a no clog warranty This warranty guarantees that water will remain free-flowing through the [redacted] gutter system If water does not remain free-flowing, [redacted] will clean the [redacted] gutters at no cost to the customer In this matter, the Customer has had an issue with wasp at his home and has requested a number of service calls related to this issue When we previously responded to the service request, we found no clogs nor any leaks Thus, the warranty was not applicable.In order to resolve this matter, the General Manager personally went to the Customer’s home Our General Manager explained that we do not do wasp or insect inspections/exterminations.But should the gutter system clog do to wasp nests in the gutter, [redacted] will remove them at no costs to the Customer Accordingly, [redacted] has and will continue to honor its warranties[redacted] does many things in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligations to do so As noted above, [redacted] has honored its contractual obligations Yet, the Customer has requested that we take down the [redacted] gutter system and install a type of open gutter system [redacted] has agreed to do so The Customer was happy with this resolution Thus, [redacted] considers this matter closed
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/07/30) */ LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") apologized for any frustration or inconvenience sustained by our Customer due to the delay in responding to his service requestHowever, the weather in the [redacted] has seriously impacted operations causing the delayWe now have had a chance to investigate the claim made by the Customer complaining that water is supposedly backing up from the LeafGuard gutter system causing water damage to the soffitsThe damage to the soffits is not due to the gutter system but due to a roof leakThe roof leak is two feet further up the roof (i.eway from the gutter system)This is the same location where the Customer is experiencing water damage to his soffitsWe showed the leak to the Customer, and he agreed that it is a roof leak, and not the gutter system, as the source of his problemsAccordingly, we consider this matter closed Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2015/07/31) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc(“LeafGuard”) has been working with the Customer for over a year now regarding his concern about icing/icicles The contract expressly advises that there could be icing/icicles, which may be severe at time As the contract further states, the icing/icicles are typically formed due to other factors versus as a direct result of the gutter system The Customer acknowledged that the provision was in the contract Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard installed heat cables to address the issues LeafGuard cannot connect the heat cables because in most circumstances an electrician is needed and LeafGuard has no electricians on staff At that time (February 2015), the Customer agreed that LeafGuard would install the cables at no cost to the Customer and the Customer would hire the electrician However, there might have been some confusion regarding this original agreement So, again in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has agreed to part of the cost for the electrician The Customer has agreed to this arrangement Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/05/28) */ LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") understands that the Customer might be frustrated regarding his expressed concerns with the LeafGuard gutter system that was installed on his home in January Nevertheless, there was either miscommunications or a misunderstanding regarding what LeafGuard is legally obligated to do and what it had already agreed to do, as will be explained belowNevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard agrees to the Customer's request for a refund of $1,of the purchase price that the Customer previously paid for the installation of a LeafGuard gutter system In his Revdex.com complaint, the Customer state that, "LeafGuard gave us a lifelong guaranty", implying that no matter what LeafGuard would take care of any problem that a customer thinks is related to his LeafGuard gutter systemThis is not accurateLeafGuard did give the Customer a two-year workmanship warranty if there is problem with the LeafGuard gutter within two (2) years of the install dateWhen the Customer did make his claim, it was within the two-year workmanship warranty periodSo, LeafGuard was working with him to rectify any problem that was truly associated with the LeafGuard gutter systemLeafGuard had even proposed a fix action to the CustomerHowever, before he responded back to the proposal, he had already had the LeafGuard gutter system replaced and then he ultimately made this Revdex.com complaint In addition to the two-year workmanship warranty, LeafGuard did provide limited, life-time no clog warrantyWith this warranty, LeafGuard agrees to service the LeafGuard gutter system if it ever become clogged, i.ethe water does not remain free flowingHowever, this warranty does provide additional coverage for any workmanship issues that occur after two (2) yearsLikewise, the manufacturer's limited lifetime paint finish warranty does not cover workmanship issues after two (2) yearsPotentially, the Customer was confusing the no clog and limited paint finish warranties duration with the more limited workmanship warranty period Despite the confusion that might exist with the warranties, the primary issue of this matter is whether LeafGuard is required to refund money to the customerThe short answer is noAs noted above, LeafGuard was required to fix workmanship issues, which it had made a proposal to do soYet, instead of fixing the issue (agreeing to the proposal), the Customer decided to remove the LeafGuard gutter system and to have a different gutter system installedObviously, he had every right to do soBut, this does not automatically mean that LeafGuard is required to refund money for this choiceThis is the same as asking a car dealership to refund a purchase price for a car purchased two (2) years ago because the individual wants to buy a different car If at all possible, LeafGuard tries to make every customer satisfied with his/her LeafGuard experienceIt will even do things in the interest of customer service, when it has no legal obligation to do so--as it is agreeing to do in this matterAccordingly, LeafGuard is agreeing to the Customer's request for the refund of $1,500, even though there is no legal obligation for it to do soThus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2015/05/29) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/08/10) */ Based on our review of Customer's complaint, information in LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc.'s job folder and prior dealings with the Customer, LeafGuard's ("LeafGuard") provides its response to the Customer's Revdex.com's complaintIf we understand the Customer's complaint, there are two general issues: (1) an alleged improper installation of the LeafGuard gutter system and (2) interior damage related to the alleged improper installationWe have thoroughly address each issue belowFor the reasons stated below, LeafGuard is not responsible for any of the issues raised in Customer's compliantNevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has offered to replace the altered portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that is on the rear of the homeAccordingly, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved In his complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter was not installed up to codeUpon investigating the installation, the General Manager and Production Manager found that the gutters had indeed been installed to code, although someone had altered the original gutter system that LeafGuard installedAlthough the Customer claims in his Complaint that the gutter system was just the way LeafGuard installed it, there is clear evidence that the gutter system had been alteredObviously, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for someone else, whomever that may be, altering the LeafGuard gutter system Additionally, in his Complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter system was responsible for interior damageThis is incorrectWhat was the most likely source of the interior damage is problems with the roof and not the LeafGuard gutter systemOne of the first things we found when investigating this matter was a large hole in the Customer's roof deckThis hole was approximately two (2) feet from the edge of roof, i.eaway from the gutter systemIf there was a problem with the gutter system, the problem with the roof deck would have been much closer to the edge of the roofAnother problem with the roof deals with the Customer's vent pipe(s)We found that they were not properly flashedBetween the hole in the roof deck and the improperly flashed vent pipe(s), any water that penetrated into the interior of the home, causing interior damage, would have come from these sources and not associated with the gutter system Contrary to the Customer's Complaint, LeafGuard did not "agree" to have a roofer come to the Customer's home to give him an estimate for the interior damageWe did not do so because LeafGuard never had any responsible for the roof problems and/or interior damage due to the roof problemsAccordingly, LeafGuard has not and will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage While LeafGuard will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard does agree to replace the portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that was altered by someone elseEven when LeafGuard has no legal obligation to do so, it does things in the interest of customer service, as it agreeing to do so in this matterLeafGuard believes that this is extremely fair under the true facts of this matterThus, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved
Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (2000, 6, 2015/06/30) */ MrWilliams called and stated that the business sent him his dinner card and the $ [redacted] CardHe stated that his complaint is RESOLVED and that he couldn't have done it without the help of the Revdex.comConsumer is 100% satisfiedCase Closed as RESOLVED
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 7, 2015/11/20) */ Respectfully, LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") disagrees with the Customer's assessment of her situationIn her complaint, the Customer alleges that LeafGuard caused damage to her roof when LeafGuard installed a LeafGuard gutter system two years ago and that LeafGuard has not been responsive to herNeither allegation is accurateAdditionally, the Customer misunderstands the warranties she received when she purchased the LeafGuard gutter systemWe will address each item below The damage to roof that the Customer now complains of preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the Customer's homeActually, it is LeafGuard's understanding that the roof damage probably preexisted the Customer owning the homeAs part of its efforts to assist the Customer with her problem, LeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager consulted with various roofers to determine what the source of the Customer's problem isWe have been advised that rafter tails of the home had been cutBased on gathering other information, the roofers concluded that a previous homeowner had a roof installed, but the roofer who installed the roof did not do a good jobThe prior roofer installed the shingles to overhang off the roofIn attempt to correct the problem, the prior roofer used a saw to cut back the shingles before flashing the homeWhile doing so, the prior roofer cut through the rafter tails of the home and then flashed over the workThus, the cut rafter tails could not be seen by anyone, including the inspector who the Customer had hired to inspect the home before purchaseAdditionally, the prior roofer never pulled the required permitAs such, the City of Lakewood's building inspector never had a chance to inspect the workOnce the rafter tails were cut, they became compromised and were going to fail at some point time In addition to causing the compromised rafter tails, the prior roofer also performed other work incorrectlyLeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager did not see any visible felt paper and/or any type of underlayment to protect the deckingOver time, this has allowed water to seep under the shingle, causing additional deterioration of the rafter tailsAdditionally, the undersized and inadequate nails to attach the fascia board to the rafter tails were usedAll of these factors contributed to the fascia board falling off the homeThe Customer has been advised of this deficiencies with her roof In her complaint, the Customer indicates that the LeafGuard gutter system is failing off the homeMore correctly, the fascia board is falling off the homeThe LeafGuard gutter system is attached to the fascia boardThe fascia board is falling off because that continuing degeneration of the compromised rafter tailsWhen LeafGuard sold and installed the LeafGuard gutter system, there was no way we could have foreseen that the rafter tails had been compromised and cut through Regarding the lack of communication, both of LeafGuard's senior managers have been involved trying to assist the Customer with her problemsAs noted above, LeafGuard personnel have met with the Customer, her sister, roofers and the insurance adjusterFurthermore, there have been numerous communications between the Customer and her sister with LeafGuard personnelAdditionally, LeafGuard has fully cooperated with the Customer and her insurance company to assist in the resolution of the hail claimLeafGuard has provided an estimate to the insurance company for replacing the LeafGuard gutter system that was damaged by hail and not due to any actions or inaction on the part of LeafGuardLeafGuard has been recently advised that the Customer was going to replace the hail damaged LeafGuard gutter system with another type of gutter system In her complaint, the Customer states that LeafGuard was not living up to its "lifetime warranty"As an initial point, LeafGuard has fully lived up to all of its warranty obligationsYet, the Customer is confused regarding the scope of warranty she receivedIt is not an unlimited warrantyThe only "lifetime" warranty that she received from LeafGuard was a lifetime "no-clog" warrantyIf at any time the LeafGuard gutter system becomes clogged, i.ethe water does not remain free-flowing, LeafGuard will clean the gutter at no cost to the CustomerIn addition to receiving the lifetime no-clog warranty from LeafGuard, the Customer also received a limited lifetime paint finish warranty from the manufacturerRegarding potential issues of workmanship, like she now complaints of, the Customer only received a two-year warrantyThe contract is very clear regarding the warranties that were provided to the Customer LeafGuard does many thing in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligation to do soHowever, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for every potential problem with a home just because it installed a gutter system on that homeThis is the situation that we have in this matterThe problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the homeThe Customer's personally selected roofer has said as muchThus, LeafGuard respectfully declines the Customer's demand to refund the amount the Customer paid for the LeafGuard gutter system or to remove all of the Leaf Guard gutter system, repair the roof, install new fascia boards and new gutters at no expense to the Customer Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 9, 2015/12/04) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) please see attached.In responseto the LeafGuard Nov 20, In the first paragraph; We did not say that LeafGuard caused damage to our roofWe said the gutters were pulling away from the roof and were still attached to the fascia boardsSince the gutters were still attached to the fascia boards, why weren't they attached to the rafter tails? Were the screws too small? The gutters should have been attached to the roofNot just the fascia boards While it may not have been possible for LeafGuard to anticipate possible roofing installation issues which may not have been evident when the LeafGuard gutters were installed, wouldn't the fascia have been exposed revealing the undersize and inaccurate nailsLeafGuard, as part of the pre installation preparation process in light of their extensive expertise should have recognized this and provided an opportunity for us to solve this issueLeafGuard, in neglecting to inform us of the concerns with the undersized and inadequate nails at installation, should be required to reimburse us for the original gutters LeafGuard states they responded to us in a timely mannerThey did notSeveral calls had to be made including calls to the Corporate office; before we received a return call from the General Manager If LeafGuard had used the appropriate size nails the gutters should have been attached to the roof not just the fascia boards Per a roof inspection done Oct X XXXX by a roof broker he states"Gutter screws did not hit the rafter tails and have pulled the fascia and gutters away from the roof" In regards to the lack of communication issueWe made our initial call to LeafGuard on Sept 25th without any response for two weeksIt took six or seven more calls before we had any response whatsoeverYes, after we finally had someone return the calls we did have the production manager come to the houseHe said he had never seen anything like this (because the gutters were hanging off the roof by several inches) and it wasn't LeafGuard's fault He then referred a preferred contractor roofer to usThe roofer gave us an estimate to repair the roof and guttersThe roofer and production manager also met with our claims adjuster from State FarmAfter several requests the production manager finally gave us an estimate to repair the hail damaged guttersHowever, the insurance has requested a price per square foot and still has had no response as of 11/27/In fact, State Farm Insurance did not receive any paperwork from LeafGuardWe repeatedly called and requested they email us the information so we could get it to our insurance In the last paragraph of LeafGuard's response it says "The problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the homeThe Customer's personally selected roofer has said as much"This is not TrueOur roofer did not say anything to that effect We respectfully request a full refund for the original gutters Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 13, 2015/12/20) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) We still feel LeafGuard has done wrong regarding the gutters and they have not been helpfulIn fact, State Farm is still waiting for LeafGuard to provide information so our claim can be completely finished We have had two home inspections and there was not any mention of roof problems We do not consider this matter closed We will not be satisfied without a full refund from LeafGuard Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 16, 2015/12/28) */ LeafGuard understand that the Customer might have a different perspective than LeafGuard with regard to whom is responsible for the fascia board falling off her former homeNevertheless, as has been thoroughly explained, LeafGuard did not cause the problems with the roof and/or rafter tailsThese problems preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the homeThus, LeafGuard is not responsible for paying for the fascia board falling off the home As to LeafGuard assisting with the Customer's insurance claim, the Customer is incorrect that LeafGuard has failed to communication with her insurer, State Farm, for the hail damage claim to the LeafGuard gutter systemLeafGuard has communicated with State Farm and provided the information State Farm requested in its effort to adjust her hail damage claimLeafGuard has attached an email thread between State Farm and LeafGuard's General Manager clearly showing that the information was provided over a month agoActually, LeafGuard's email response was the second time that LeafGuard provided the information to State Farm; it had faxed the information previouslyIf there has been a delay with the claim not being finalized, it is not due to the fault of LeafGuard
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/07/01) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc(LeafGuard") feels like there has been much confusion and miscommunication regarding this complaintLeafGuard disagrees with the Customer's characterizations of the LeafGuard in his Revdex.com complaintLeafGuard has
been extremely responsive of the Customer's concerns and diligently worked with him and his contractor to assist with the insurance claim that the Customer made for hail damage to his home, including damage to the LeafGuard gutter system that was installed last yearAfter the insurance situation was resolved, LeafGuard completed all work it was contractually obligated to do so, plus additional workThis work was completed last weekThe Customer was satisfied with the completed workAccordingly, we consider this matter closed
As an example of how LeafGuard has been responsive to the Customer, we want to provide a highlights how we have assisted with the insurance claimAs noted above, there was a hail storm in the Denver area damaging the Customer's gutteringBecause an insurance claim was required, LeafGuard's General Manager has been dealing with the Customer on the replacementThe Customer turned over all negotiations and communications regarding the hail storm repairs to his contractorThis has contributed to some of the issues of confusion and miscommunicationIt was only within the last few weeks that LeafGuard received authorization a week ago to replace the guttersUpon getting the authorization, we scheduled the work and completed it last weekSo, again, we consider this matter closed
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/07/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I concur with Leaf Guard that this matter is closed as the gutters were installed on June 23, I have no doubt that Leaf Guard disagrees with the characterizations levied by the customerAlthough Leave Guard did respond to information surrounding our hail damage, they did not assist with the insurance claim, our contractor communicated with our insurance company exclusivelyAs was confirmed to me my ** *** *** in a phone conversationI concur that I authorized my contractor to speak on my behalf, however, local Leaf Guard and Corporate Leaf Guard *** *** *** stated they would not and did not work with contractors (agents) due to issues collection money...the homeowner would pay when a contractor would notThat said, eventually, Leaf Guard worked with my contractor
In Leaf Guard's comments they mention, "plus additional work."Although Leaf Guard does not mention the "additional work", it was to rectify issues we had addressed a year agoWith no response from Leaf GuardThese issues were included in the Customer's Original Complain portion of this complaint
Additionally, I concur there has been much confusion and miscommunication; however, I believe it has more to do with the loss of our file at the local Leaf GuardWe have been told by the local office and the corporate office in Texas that, "we fell through the cracks during a time change and employee overturn." In my opinion, poor customer service, and surely no follto the letter of concern we mailed September
Finally, and again, I do consider the case with Leaf Guard closedI consider the case closed mainly to the personal attention ** *** *** took in our caseWe believe the Leaf Guard product to be a good product, but woe to the customer in need of follcustomer support
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2015/07/10) */
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/01) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc("LeafGuard") respectfully disagrees with the Customer's complaint in that it failed to communicate with the Customer's chosen general contractor, *** *** regarding why the delay in installing a
replacement LeafGuard gutter systemAs discussed below, the delay was caused by another subcontractor, the rooferOn a number of occasions, LeafGuard advised *** *** why it could not install the replacement gutter system and tried to communicate directly with the roofer to explain what needed to occur to allow the installationEventually, after a meeting by all of the parties, which LeafGuard had requested on a number of occasions, both *** *** and the roofer finally understood the problemsThis meeting occurred on the same date as the Customer filed his complaintSubsequent to the meeting, the roofer eventually fixed the problems that prevented the installation of the replacement gutter systemAccordingly, LeafGuard can now install the replacement LeafGuard gutter systemIt is scheduled to be installed tomorrow
Previously, LeafGuard installed a LeafGuard gutter system on the Customer's homeHowever, the LeafGuard gutter system was damaged by hail and had to be replacedIn addition to the LeafGuard gutter system being damaged, other portions of the home were also damaged by the homeThus, the Customer retained a general contractor, *** *** to be his agent overseeing all of the repairs to the home
Prior to LeafGuard being involved in this project, the Customer had already retained *** *** LeafGuard was advised to communicate directly with *** *** which it didIt was LeafGuard's understanding that the Customer wanted all his communication regarding the project to come directly from *** *** LeafGuard does not know what *** *** told to the Customer regarding the delayNevertheless, LeafGuard did thoroughly communicate the issues causing the delay to the Customer's representative, *** ***
When LeafGuard first attempted to install the replacement LeafGuard gutter system, it found issues with the roof that prevented the installationAs an example, the roofer shingled over the fasciaBefore LeafGuard could install the LeafGuard gutter system, the roofer needed to remove the lower two rows of shingles, flash the house and install fascia boards that were removed from the back of the houseThese were simple fixes and could have been accomplished sooner if the roofer understood the issues soonerBut, LeafGuard was prevented from speaking with the roofer, and the general contractor did not initially understand as to why the problems with the roof caused the delay in the installation of the LeafGuard gutter systemYet, once LeafGuard had an opportunity to truly explain the issues, all understoodThis is how we were finally able to move the process along
In his complaint, the Customer's desired resolution was to have the replacement LeafGuard gutter system installedWith it being installed tomorrow, LeafGuard considers this matter closed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/30) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. ("LeafGuard") apologized for any frustration or inconvenience sustained by our Customer due to the delay in responding to his service request. However, the weather in the [redacted] has seriously impacted operations...
causing the delay. We now have had a chance to investigate the claim made by the Customer complaining that water is supposedly backing up from the LeafGuard gutter system causing water damage to the soffits. The damage to the soffits is not due to the gutter system but due to a roof leak. The roof leak is two feet further up the roof (i.e. way from the gutter system). This is the same location where the Customer is experiencing water damage to his soffits. We showed the leak to the Customer, and he agreed that it is a roof leak, and not the gutter system, as the source of his problems. Accordingly, we consider this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/07/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. (“LeafGuard”) has been working with the Customer for over a year now regarding his concern about icing/icicles. The contract expressly advises that there could be icing/icicles, which may be severe at time. As the contract further states, the...
icing/icicles are typically formed due to other factors versus as a direct result of the gutter system. The Customer acknowledged that the provision was in the contract. Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard installed heat cables to address the issues. LeafGuard cannot connect the heat cables because in most circumstances an electrician is needed and LeafGuard has no electricians on staff. At that time (February 2015), the Customer agreed that LeafGuard would install the cables at no cost to the Customer and the Customer would hire the electrician. However, there might have been some confusion regarding this original agreement. So, again in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has agreed to part of the cost for the electrician. The Customer has agreed to this arrangement. Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed.
We believe that the Customer was confused as to the scope of the warranty he received when he purchased a [redacted] gutter system, which is the only one-piece covered gutter system on the market, from [redacted] of [redacted], Inc. (“[redacted]”). Unfortunately, we had a difficult time connecting...
with him to discuss the situation. When the Customer received his [redacted] gutter system, [redacted] issued a no clog warranty. This warranty guarantees that water will remain free-flowing through the [redacted] gutter system. If water does not remain free-flowing, [redacted] will clean the [redacted] gutters at no cost to the customer. In this matter, the Customer has had an issue with wasp at his home and has requested a number of service calls related to this issue. When we previously responded to the service request, we found no clogs nor any leaks. Thus, the warranty was not applicable.In order to resolve this matter, the General Manager personally went to the Customer’s home. Our General Manager explained that we do not do wasp or insect inspections/exterminations.But should the gutter system clog do to wasp nests in the gutter, [redacted] will remove them at no costs to the Customer. Accordingly, [redacted] has and will continue to honor its warranties.[redacted] does many things in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligations to do so. As noted above, [redacted] has honored its contractual obligations. Yet, the Customer has requested that we take down the [redacted] gutter system and install a type of open gutter system. [redacted] has agreed to do so. The Customer was happy with this resolution. Thus, [redacted] considers this matter closed.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2015/11/20) */
Respectfully, LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. ("LeafGuard") disagrees with the Customer's assessment of her situation. In her complaint, the Customer alleges that LeafGuard caused damage to her roof when LeafGuard installed a LeafGuard gutter...
system two years ago and that LeafGuard has not been responsive to her. Neither allegation is accurate. Additionally, the Customer misunderstands the warranties she received when she purchased the LeafGuard gutter system. We will address each item below.
The damage to roof that the Customer now complains of preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the Customer's home. Actually, it is LeafGuard's understanding that the roof damage probably preexisted the Customer owning the home. As part of its efforts to assist the Customer with her problem, LeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager consulted with various roofers to determine what the source of the Customer's problem is. We have been advised that rafter tails of the home had been cut. Based on gathering other information, the roofers concluded that a previous homeowner had a roof installed, but the roofer who installed the roof did not do a good job. The prior roofer installed the shingles to overhang off the roof. In attempt to correct the problem, the prior roofer used a saw to cut back the shingles before flashing the home. While doing so, the prior roofer cut through the rafter tails of the home and then flashed over the work. Thus, the cut rafter tails could not be seen by anyone, including the inspector who the Customer had hired to inspect the home before purchase. Additionally, the prior roofer never pulled the required permit. As such, the City of Lakewood's building inspector never had a chance to inspect the work. Once the rafter tails were cut, they became compromised and were going to fail at some point time.
In addition to causing the compromised rafter tails, the prior roofer also performed other work incorrectly. LeafGuard's General Manager and Production Manager did not see any visible felt paper and/or any type of underlayment to protect the decking. Over time, this has allowed water to seep under the shingle, causing additional deterioration of the rafter tails. Additionally, the undersized and inadequate nails to attach the fascia board to the rafter tails were used. All of these factors contributed to the fascia board falling off the home. The Customer has been advised of this deficiencies with her roof.
In her complaint, the Customer indicates that the LeafGuard gutter system is failing off the home. More correctly, the fascia board is falling off the home. The LeafGuard gutter system is attached to the fascia board. The fascia board is falling off because that continuing degeneration of the compromised rafter tails. When LeafGuard sold and installed the LeafGuard gutter system, there was no way we could have foreseen that the rafter tails had been compromised and cut through.
Regarding the lack of communication, both of LeafGuard's senior managers have been involved trying to assist the Customer with her problems. As noted above, LeafGuard personnel have met with the Customer, her sister, roofers and the insurance adjuster. Furthermore, there have been numerous communications between the Customer and her sister with LeafGuard personnel. Additionally, LeafGuard has fully cooperated with the Customer and her insurance company to assist in the resolution of the hail claim. LeafGuard has provided an estimate to the insurance company for replacing the LeafGuard gutter system that was damaged by hail and not due to any actions or inaction on the part of LeafGuard. LeafGuard has been recently advised that the Customer was going to replace the hail damaged LeafGuard gutter system with another type of gutter system.
In her complaint, the Customer states that LeafGuard was not living up to its "lifetime warranty". As an initial point, LeafGuard has fully lived up to all of its warranty obligations. Yet, the Customer is confused regarding the scope of warranty she received. It is not an unlimited warranty. The only "lifetime" warranty that she received from LeafGuard was a lifetime "no-clog" warranty. If at any time the LeafGuard gutter system becomes clogged, i.e. the water does not remain free-flowing, LeafGuard will clean the gutter at no cost to the Customer. In addition to receiving the lifetime no-clog warranty from LeafGuard, the Customer also received a limited lifetime paint finish warranty from the manufacturer. Regarding potential issues of workmanship, like she now complaints of, the Customer only received a two-year warranty. The contract is very clear regarding the warranties that were provided to the Customer.
LeafGuard does many thing in the interest of customer service, even when it has no legal obligation to do so. However, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for every potential problem with a home just because it installed a gutter system on that home. This is the situation that we have in this matter. The problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the home. The Customer's personally selected roofer has said as much. Thus, LeafGuard respectfully declines the Customer's demand to refund the amount the Customer paid for the LeafGuard gutter system or to remove all of the Leaf Guard gutter system, repair the roof, install new fascia boards and new gutters at no expense to the Customer.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2015/12/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
please see attached.In response... to the LeafGuard Nov 20, 2015
In the first paragraph; We did not say that LeafGuard caused damage to our roof. We said the gutters were pulling away from the roof and were still attached to the fascia boards. Since the gutters were still attached to the fascia boards, why weren't they attached to the rafter tails? Were the screws too small?
The gutters should have been attached to the roof. Not just the fascia boards
While it may not have been possible for LeafGuard to anticipate possible roofing installation issues which may not have been evident when the LeafGuard gutters were installed, wouldn't the fascia have been exposed revealing the undersize and inaccurate nails. LeafGuard, as part of the pre installation preparation process in light of their extensive expertise should have recognized this and provided an opportunity for us to solve this issue. LeafGuard, in neglecting to inform us of the concerns with the undersized and inadequate nails at installation, should be required to reimburse us for the original gutters.
LeafGuard states they responded to us in a timely manner. They did not. Several calls had to be made including calls to the Corporate office; before we received a return call from the General Manager.
If LeafGuard had used the appropriate size nails the gutters should have been attached to the roof not just the fascia boards.
Per a roof inspection done Oct X XXXX by a roof broker he states.... "Gutter screws did not hit the rafter tails and have pulled the fascia and gutters away from the roof".
In regards to the lack of communication issue. We made our initial call to LeafGuard on Sept 25th without any response for two weeks. It took six or seven more calls before we had any response whatsoever. Yes, after we finally had someone return the calls we did have the production manager come to the house. He said he had never seen anything like this (because the gutters were hanging off the roof by several inches) and it wasn't LeafGuard's fault.
He then referred a preferred contractor roofer to us. The roofer gave us an estimate to repair the roof and gutters. The roofer and production manager also met with our claims adjuster from State Farm. After several requests the production manager finally gave us an estimate to repair the hail damaged gutters. However, the insurance has requested a price per square foot and still has had no response as of 11/27/15. In fact, State Farm Insurance did not receive any paperwork from LeafGuard. We repeatedly called and requested they email us the information so we could get it to our insurance.
In the last paragraph of LeafGuard's response it says "The problems with the home pre-existed LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the home. The Customer's personally selected roofer has said as much". This is not True. Our roofer did not say anything to that effect.
We respectfully request a full refund for the original gutters.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 13, 2015/12/20) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We still feel LeafGuard has done wrong regarding the gutters and they have not been helpful. In fact, State Farm is still waiting for LeafGuard to provide information so our claim can be completely finished.
We have had two home inspections and there was not any mention of roof problems.
We do not consider this matter closed.
We will not be satisfied without a full refund from LeafGuard.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2015/12/28) */
LeafGuard understand that the Customer might have a different perspective than LeafGuard with regard to whom is responsible for the fascia board falling off her former home. Nevertheless, as has been thoroughly explained, LeafGuard did not cause the problems with the roof and/or rafter tails. These problems preexisted LeafGuard installing the LeafGuard gutter system on the home. Thus, LeafGuard is not responsible for paying for the fascia board falling off the home.
As to LeafGuard assisting with the Customer's insurance claim, the Customer is incorrect that LeafGuard has failed to communication with her insurer, State Farm, for the hail damage claim to the LeafGuard gutter system. LeafGuard has communicated with State Farm and provided the information State Farm requested in its effort to adjust her hail damage claim. LeafGuard has attached an email thread between State Farm and LeafGuard's General Manager clearly showing that the information was provided over a month ago. Actually, LeafGuard's email response was the second time that LeafGuard provided the information to State Farm; it had faxed the information previously. If there has been a delay with the claim not being finalized, it is not due to the fault of LeafGuard.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/10) */
Based on our review of Customer's complaint, information in LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc.'s job folder and prior dealings with the Customer, LeafGuard's ("LeafGuard") provides its response to the Customer's Revdex.com's complaint. If...
we understand the Customer's complaint, there are two general issues: (1) an alleged improper installation of the LeafGuard gutter system and (2) interior damage related to the alleged improper installation. We have thoroughly address each issue below. For the reasons stated below, LeafGuard is not responsible for any of the issues raised in Customer's compliant. Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard has offered to replace the altered portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that is on the rear of the home. Accordingly, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved.
In his complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter was not installed up to code. Upon investigating the installation, the General Manager and Production Manager found that the gutters had indeed been installed to code, although someone had altered the original gutter system that LeafGuard installed. Although the Customer claims in his Complaint that the gutter system was just the way LeafGuard installed it, there is clear evidence that the gutter system had been altered. Obviously, LeafGuard cannot be responsible for someone else, whomever that may be, altering the LeafGuard gutter system.
Additionally, in his Complaint, the Customer alleges that the LeafGuard gutter system was responsible for interior damage. This is incorrect. What was the most likely source of the interior damage is problems with the roof and not the LeafGuard gutter system. One of the first things we found when investigating this matter was a large hole in the Customer's roof deck. This hole was approximately two (2) feet from the edge of roof, i.e. away from the gutter system. If there was a problem with the gutter system, the problem with the roof deck would have been much closer to the edge of the roof. Another problem with the roof deals with the Customer's vent pipe(s). We found that they were not properly flashed. Between the hole in the roof deck and the improperly flashed vent pipe(s), any water that penetrated into the interior of the home, causing interior damage, would have come from these sources and not associated with the gutter system.
Contrary to the Customer's Complaint, LeafGuard did not "agree" to have a roofer come to the Customer's home to give him an estimate for the interior damage. We did not do so because LeafGuard never had any responsible for the roof problems and/or interior damage due to the roof problems. Accordingly, LeafGuard has not and will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage.
While LeafGuard will not agree to be responsible for the interior damage, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard does agree to replace the portion of the LeafGuard gutter system that was altered by someone else. Even when LeafGuard has no legal obligation to do so, it does things in the interest of customer service, as it agreeing to do so in this matter. LeafGuard believes that this is extremely fair under the true facts of this matter. Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter resolved.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 6, 2015/06/30) */
Mr. Williams called and stated that the business sent him his dinner card and the $200.00 [redacted] Card. He stated that his complaint is RESOLVED and that he couldn't have done it without the help of the Revdex.com. Consumer is 100% satisfied. Case Closed as...
RESOLVED
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/28) */
LeafGuard of Colorado, Inc. ("LeafGuard") understands that the Customer might be frustrated regarding his expressed concerns with the LeafGuard gutter system that was installed on his home in January 2013. Nevertheless, there was either...
miscommunications or a misunderstanding regarding what LeafGuard is legally obligated to do and what it had already agreed to do, as will be explained below. Nevertheless, in the interest of customer service, LeafGuard agrees to the Customer's request for a refund of $1,500 of the purchase price that the Customer previously paid for the installation of a LeafGuard gutter system.
In his Revdex.com complaint, the Customer state that, "LeafGuard gave us a lifelong guaranty", implying that no matter what LeafGuard would take care of any problem that a customer thinks is related to his LeafGuard gutter system. This is not accurate. LeafGuard did give the Customer a two-year workmanship warranty if there is problem with the LeafGuard gutter within two (2) years of the install date. When the Customer did make his claim, it was within the two-year workmanship warranty period. So, LeafGuard was working with him to rectify any problem that was truly associated with the LeafGuard gutter system. LeafGuard had even proposed a fix action to the Customer. However, before he responded back to the proposal, he had already had the LeafGuard gutter system replaced and then he ultimately made this Revdex.com complaint.
In addition to the two-year workmanship warranty, LeafGuard did provide limited, life-time no clog warranty. With this warranty, LeafGuard agrees to service the LeafGuard gutter system if it ever become clogged, i.e. the water does not remain free flowing. However, this warranty does provide additional coverage for any workmanship issues that occur after two (2) years. Likewise, the manufacturer's limited lifetime paint finish warranty does not cover workmanship issues after two (2) years. Potentially, the Customer was confusing the no clog and limited paint finish warranties duration with the more limited workmanship warranty period.
Despite the confusion that might exist with the warranties, the primary issue of this matter is whether LeafGuard is required to refund money to the customer. The short answer is no. As noted above, LeafGuard was required to fix workmanship issues, which it had made a proposal to do so. Yet, instead of fixing the issue (agreeing to the proposal), the Customer decided to remove the LeafGuard gutter system and to have a different gutter system installed. Obviously, he had every right to do so. But, this does not automatically mean that LeafGuard is required to refund money for this choice. This is the same as asking a car dealership to refund a purchase price for a car purchased two (2) years ago because the individual wants to buy a different car.
If at all possible, LeafGuard tries to make every customer satisfied with his/her LeafGuard experience. It will even do things in the interest of customer service, when it has no legal obligation to do so--as it is agreeing to do in this matter. Accordingly, LeafGuard is agreeing to the Customer's request for the refund of $1,500, even though there is no legal obligation for it to do so. Thus, LeafGuard considers this matter closed.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/05/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)