BSR installed a roof for the owner in December of There was previous damage due to ice buildup in the exact same area as the owner is complaining about now which the owner and his wife both admit to When the owner called in February to report a leak we assured them that if the leak was the result of improper installation that we would certainly take care of the damages Upon inspection of the roof in February it was noted that there was severe ice dams at the edge of the area the owner is complaining aboutThis resulted in the junction of the roofing to the house walls to be completely submerged in water and water to be leaking in the walls behind the sidingThis is a cathedral ceiling area that has severe heat loss due to inadequate insulation There have been no leaks after that period of severe winter weather We then informed the owner that we were unable to accept any of the damage since the leakage was in an area that was outside of our original scope of work and that the leak was occurring in the exact same place as the pre-existing damage The owner had us come out in May to re-inspect the roofing and we were able to come up with solutions to his problem which included the option of installing heat cables to prevent the ice dams or removing the siding at the walls and installing a leak barrierWe also explained that we could not cover his insurance deductible due to the fact that the problem area was outside of the original scope of work not to mention the fact that the damage was already there before we had even installed the roofing The owner contends that the roof is leaking due to the temperature in which the roofing was installedWe explained that the temperature limitations on the shingle only have to do with the adhesive tabs on the shingle which prevent wind uplift and that it is not relevant to his issueWe also explained that the temperature had reached a point where the adhesive was activated anyway and that even that was not a concern The roofing was installed exactly as per manufacturers' specifications and the roofing also has the manufacturers' extended warranty which provides years of non-prorated material defect coverage for the entire systemThe warranty is entirely in effect and the owner can easily verify this through the manufacturer The bottom line is that the owner wants us to cover his insurance deductible for a problem that was outside of the original scope of work for damage that was existing long before we even started the roofing workWe feel this is unreasonable We have provided several options that we are confident would solve the owner's problem however they were not in the original scope of work and have nothing to do with the roofing we installed
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint As I said in my original complaint, I can't prove that the lack of adhesion was (part of) the cause of the problem However, I will note that when BSR first came to check out the problem, the roofers who came then were the ones who mentioned the adhesion issue to me. I never would have thought of it on my own At a minimum, I believe that the potential concern should have been brought to my attention before the roof was installed The response did not address this issueThe response also did not address my complaint regarding the flipflop ("yes, we will cover your damage; no we won't") Finally, and perhaps most seriously, after sending in my original complaint, I had someone come to clean out my gutters (since BSR mentioned that that was part of the problem) It turned out that the gutters were indeed blocked -- largely by debris left behind by BSR (rolls of nails, for example) When I sent BSR the pictures taken by our gutter cleaner, they agreed that that was inappropriate, and paid half the cost of the gutter cleaning If there had been no leakage, that payment strikes me as perfectly reasonable (it's clear that our gutters needed cleaning irrespective of the debris BSR left behind)But that does not address the fact that the gutter blockage may have been partly responsible for the leakage
Regards,
*** ***
BSR installed a roof for the owner in December of 2014. There was previous damage due to ice buildup in the exact same area as the owner is complaining about now which the owner and his wife both admit to.
When the owner called in February to report a leak we assured them that if the leak was...
the result of improper installation that we would certainly take care of the damages.
Upon inspection of the roof in February it was noted that there was severe ice dams at the edge of the area the owner is complaining about. This resulted in the junction of the roofing to the house walls to be completely submerged in water and water to be leaking in the walls behind the siding. This is a cathedral ceiling area that has severe heat loss due to inadequate insulation.
There have been no leaks after that period of severe winter weather.
We then informed the owner that we were unable to accept any of the damage since the leakage was in an area that was outside of our original scope of work and that the leak was occurring in the exact same place as the pre-existing damage.
The owner had us come out in May to re-inspect the roofing and we were able to come up with solutions to his problem which included the option of installing heat cables to prevent the ice dams or removing the siding at the walls and installing a leak barrier. We also explained that we could not cover his insurance deductible due to the fact that the problem area was outside of the original scope of work not to mention the fact that the damage was already there before we had even installed the roofing.
The owner contends that the roof is leaking due to the temperature in which the roofing was installed. We explained that the temperature limitations on the shingle only have to do with the adhesive tabs on the shingle which prevent wind uplift and that it is not relevant to his issue. We also explained that the temperature had reached a point where the adhesive was activated anyway and that even that was not a concern.
The roofing was installed exactly as per manufacturers' specifications and the roofing also has the manufacturers' extended warranty which provides 50 years of non-prorated material defect coverage for the entire system. The warranty is entirely in effect and the owner can easily verify this through the manufacturer.
The bottom line is that the owner wants us to cover his insurance deductible for a problem that was outside of the original scope of work for damage that was existing long before we even started the roofing work. We feel this is unreasonable.
We have provided several options that we are confident would solve the owner's problem however they were not in the original scope of work and have nothing to do with the roofing we installed.
BSR installed a roof for the owner in December of There was previous damage due to ice buildup in the exact same area as the owner is complaining about now which the owner and his wife both admit to When the owner called in February to report a leak we assured them that if the leak was the result of improper installation that we would certainly take care of the damages Upon inspection of the roof in February it was noted that there was severe ice dams at the edge of the area the owner is complaining aboutThis resulted in the junction of the roofing to the house walls to be completely submerged in water and water to be leaking in the walls behind the sidingThis is a cathedral ceiling area that has severe heat loss due to inadequate insulation There have been no leaks after that period of severe winter weather We then informed the owner that we were unable to accept any of the damage since the leakage was in an area that was outside of our original scope of work and that the leak was occurring in the exact same place as the pre-existing damage The owner had us come out in May to re-inspect the roofing and we were able to come up with solutions to his problem which included the option of installing heat cables to prevent the ice dams or removing the siding at the walls and installing a leak barrierWe also explained that we could not cover his insurance deductible due to the fact that the problem area was outside of the original scope of work not to mention the fact that the damage was already there before we had even installed the roofing The owner contends that the roof is leaking due to the temperature in which the roofing was installedWe explained that the temperature limitations on the shingle only have to do with the adhesive tabs on the shingle which prevent wind uplift and that it is not relevant to his issueWe also explained that the temperature had reached a point where the adhesive was activated anyway and that even that was not a concern The roofing was installed exactly as per manufacturers' specifications and the roofing also has the manufacturers' extended warranty which provides years of non-prorated material defect coverage for the entire systemThe warranty is entirely in effect and the owner can easily verify this through the manufacturer The bottom line is that the owner wants us to cover his insurance deductible for a problem that was outside of the original scope of work for damage that was existing long before we even started the roofing workWe feel this is unreasonable We have provided several options that we are confident would solve the owner's problem however they were not in the original scope of work and have nothing to do with the roofing we installed
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint As I said in my original complaint, I can't prove that the lack of adhesion was (part of) the cause of the problem However, I will note that when BSR first came to check out the problem, the roofers who came then were the ones who mentioned the adhesion issue to me. I never would have thought of it on my own At a minimum, I believe that the potential concern should have been brought to my attention before the roof was installed The response did not address this issueThe response also did not address my complaint regarding the flipflop ("yes, we will cover your damage; no we won't") Finally, and perhaps most seriously, after sending in my original complaint, I had someone come to clean out my gutters (since BSR mentioned that that was part of the problem) It turned out that the gutters were indeed blocked -- largely by debris left behind by BSR (rolls of nails, for example) When I sent BSR the pictures taken by our gutter cleaner, they agreed that that was inappropriate, and paid half the cost of the gutter cleaning If there had been no leakage, that payment strikes me as perfectly reasonable (it's clear that our gutters needed cleaning irrespective of the debris BSR left behind)But that does not address the fact that the gutter blockage may have been partly responsible for the leakage
Regards,
*** ***
BSR installed a roof for the owner in December of 2014. There was previous damage due to ice buildup in the exact same area as the owner is complaining about now which the owner and his wife both admit to.
When the owner called in February to report a leak we assured them that if the leak was...
the result of improper installation that we would certainly take care of the damages.
Upon inspection of the roof in February it was noted that there was severe ice dams at the edge of the area the owner is complaining about. This resulted in the junction of the roofing to the house walls to be completely submerged in water and water to be leaking in the walls behind the siding. This is a cathedral ceiling area that has severe heat loss due to inadequate insulation.
There have been no leaks after that period of severe winter weather.
We then informed the owner that we were unable to accept any of the damage since the leakage was in an area that was outside of our original scope of work and that the leak was occurring in the exact same place as the pre-existing damage.
The owner had us come out in May to re-inspect the roofing and we were able to come up with solutions to his problem which included the option of installing heat cables to prevent the ice dams or removing the siding at the walls and installing a leak barrier. We also explained that we could not cover his insurance deductible due to the fact that the problem area was outside of the original scope of work not to mention the fact that the damage was already there before we had even installed the roofing.
The owner contends that the roof is leaking due to the temperature in which the roofing was installed. We explained that the temperature limitations on the shingle only have to do with the adhesive tabs on the shingle which prevent wind uplift and that it is not relevant to his issue. We also explained that the temperature had reached a point where the adhesive was activated anyway and that even that was not a concern.
The roofing was installed exactly as per manufacturers' specifications and the roofing also has the manufacturers' extended warranty which provides 50 years of non-prorated material defect coverage for the entire system. The warranty is entirely in effect and the owner can easily verify this through the manufacturer.
The bottom line is that the owner wants us to cover his insurance deductible for a problem that was outside of the original scope of work for damage that was existing long before we even started the roofing work. We feel this is unreasonable.
We have provided several options that we are confident would solve the owner's problem however they were not in the original scope of work and have nothing to do with the roofing we installed.