Colwell & Son Construction LLC

Revdex.com,Thank you for the opportunity to have an open forum regarding this complaint In my opinion, as an expert in the construction business, with 100% satisfied consumers (including this one for almost months), and this being my first Revdex.com complaint in our more than years in business, what we have here is an unresolved complaint regarding a third party's opinion vsan incredibly clear work estimate completed for over a year to the customer's satisfaction As the consumer is relying heavily on the third party's opinion, I would like to note that I question the timing of the third party to remove a gutter system in the middle of winter (this is detrimental to the house weather structure as everything is in its most restricted state and any installed metal will expand and bow out) and would also challenge that this complaint was made in response to the 3rd party's flawed quote (seeking to increase the bid) to a currently functional weather protection "system" that was going to require additional metal installation per his forecast and bid replacement design I want it clearly noted that the system was completely functional for over a year and wasn't until a newly designed gutter system, different from the original, uncovered pre-existing conditions that I would never have had visibility to, nor ever have been expected to alter per the estimate and what was visible at the time the roof replacement was performed An excellent analogy would be that you hire a contractor to paint your walls, and then you hire a second contractor to replace your baseboards and then find there's drywall damage once the second contractor removes the baseboard There's no way the painter would have known it was even there to begin with It's just simply not part of the job.Even with all of these inconsistencies per my record as a business owner, flaws with timing and 3rd party information, and request for work not quoted, nor promised, and a completely functional weather system, I will at my own expense provide repair of the rakes I estimate this work to cost $of materials and labor I expect that this will resolve the matter and will require a legal release of further obligation once completed to the owners satisfaction in case of any future projects, except regarding the roofing replacement which I continue, and as always, will continue to stand behind as it was the work I was originally contracted to provide service.Thank you, [redacted] MESSAGE: Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint In response to [redacted] reply to my complaint, it is true I hired his company to install a new roofHowever, Colwell & Son’s response fixates on the new drip edge as it applies to the gutter system and my complaint concerns the installation of new drip edge which fails miserably in providing adequate weather protection system wide not just the areas where gutters are presentIn the bid, Colwell & Son agreed to install linear foot at the rakes and eavesDuring my discussion with Colwell & Son over what the bid included, depth/height of the new drip edge was not mentionedNot being wise in the roofing process myself, I never knew to ask what depth/height of new drip edge would be installed assuming the contractor would install new drip edge comparable in depth/height to the old drip edgeOnce installation of the drip edge began, it should have been blatantly obvious to the installer that the new drip edge was not adequately overlapping and in many areas not overlapping the aluminum siding which wraps the rakes and eavesThe failure to adequately overlap the rakes and eaves left them exposed to the elements and had I not been alerted of the problem by another contractor, we would have been looking at costly repairs from weather damage somewhere down the road Furthermore, the information provided us by the gutter contractor are far from erroneous and he had no reason to provide this information other than to warn us of the potential problems we faced if the problem wasn’t addressedHe took me around the home to point out the problems as I took photos and spoke to [redacted] Colwell on the phone and met in person with [redacted] so he could point out the problemsThanks to you and the Revdex.com for addressing this complaintRegards, [redacted]

Thank you for providing an open forum for consumers and service providers to discuss differences in opinion regarding completed work I would like to take the opportunity to respond to [redacted] concerns and address his points specifically regarding Revdex.com ID [redacted] The modification I am making to [redacted] correspondence are:1) My company was hired by [redacted] on September 28, as per contract and work was completed was completed on November 6, 2013.2) We were hired to perform was shingle tear off, felt removal, and installation of new felt, ice guard, drip edge, and new shingle per contractIt is cus***ary within the industry when installing a new roof that the NEW DRIP EDGE being installed empties into the existing gutter system This is the work that was bid, and completed to [redacted] satisfaction At no time did I remove the existing gutter system, existing fascia, rake, soffit or siding It simply isn't part of doing a quality roof replacement, which I 100% stand by was completed, was correct, met the terms of the contract and was to the satisfaction of the homeowner The key interface between the new materials and the existing home structure is the DRIP EDGE to existing gutter system At the time of roof replacement, installation of the new drip edge was performed so that it provided sufficient coverage and drop into the existing gutter system At no point were my services expressed or implied that they extended to previous construction work regarding the existing gutter system / fascia / rake / soffit or otherwise The key point is that [redacted] was satisfied with the work and it wasn't until he attempted to have NEW services performed on the gutter, more than a YEAR LATER in December of 2014, by a different contractor for a gutter replacement that he had a complaint In order to understand his complaint, Colwell & Son attempted to meet with the contractor who had provided the erroneous information to the homeowner on-site to address the concerns We have and will continue to be consistent that any issues regarding new work and the new contractor are with the existing gutter system which had a correctly installed compatible drip edge at the time of work completionThe new work being sought was not related to a deficiently installed roof replacement Gutter replacement isn't part of a roof replacement, only that the drip edge / existing gutter interface which was correctly installed and functioning as intended for more than a yearSimply, Colwell & Son was not hired to do the work where issues arose with the new contractor and couldn't have foreseen any issues with the existing gutter system and future replacement problems that might ariseThank you again for the open forum to respond to this multi-faceted service complaint I feel provided exactly the detailed work we were contracted to perform which was to the homeowner's satisfaction for more than a year I am a preferred installer for the [redacted] company who make premier shingles and roofing products I'm required to correctly install 100% of my jobs in order to maintain this preferred status In our more than years of family owned business, this is the first complaint we've never been able to resolve, and I appreciate the forum to publically do soRegards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response from the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint Colwell and Son continues to refer to “uncovered pre-existing conditions that I would never have had visibility to”As stated in my previous response, my complaint concerns the installation of new drip edge which fails miserably in providing adequate weather protection system wide not just the areas behind the gutters The comment, “An excellent analogy would be that you hire a contractor to paint your walls, and then you hire a second contractor to replace your baseboards and then find there's drywall damage once the second contractor removes the baseboard There's no way the painter would have known it was even there to begin with” simply does not fit in this situationIt should have been blatantly obvious to the roofer/s who were han with the old and new drip edge at the time of installation that the new drip edge was not adequately overlapping and in many areas not overlapping the aluminum siding which wraps the rakes and eaves It should also be noted, once again, that I went completely around my home with the contractor who alerted us of the issues and evidence of an improperly sized drip edge was prevalent from front to backAgain, the information provided us by the contractor is far from erroneous and it should be noted, he too has an A+ rating with the Revdex.com Thanks to you and the Revdex.com for addressing this complaint Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. 
In response to [redacted] reply to my complaint, it
is true I hired his company to install a new roof. However, Colwell & Son’s
response fixates on the new drip edge as it applies to the gutter system and my
complaint concerns the installation of new drip edge which fails miserably in
providing adequate weather protection system wide not just the areas
where gutters are present.
 
In the bid, Colwell & Son agreed to install 471 linear
foot at the rakes and eaves. During my discussion with Colwell & Son over
what the bid included, depth/height of the new drip edge was not mentioned. Not
being wise in the roofing process myself, I never knew to ask what depth/height
of new drip edge would be installed assuming the contractor would install new
drip edge comparable in depth/height to the old drip edge.
 
Once installation of the drip edge began, it should have
been blatantly obvious to the installer that the new drip edge was not adequately
overlapping and in many areas not overlapping the aluminum siding which
wraps the rakes and eaves. The failure to adequately overlap the rakes and
eaves left them exposed to the elements and had I not been alerted of the
problem by another contractor, we would have been looking at costly repairs from
weather damage somewhere down the road.
 
Furthermore, the information provided us by the gutter
contractor are far from erroneous and he had no reason to provide this
information other than to warn us of the potential problems we faced if the
problem wasn’t addressed. He took me around the home to point out the problems
as I took photos and spoke to [redacted] on the phone and met in person
with [redacted] so he could point out the problems.
 
Thanks to you and the Revdex.com for addressing this complaint.
 
Regards,
[redacted]

Thank you
for providing an open forum for consumers and service providers to discuss
differences in opinion regarding completed work.
 
I would
like to take the opportunity to respond to [redacted] concerns and
address his points specifically regarding Revdex.com ID ...

[redacted].
The modification I am making to [redacted] correspondence are:1) My company was hired by [redacted] on September 28, 2013 as per contract and work was completed was completed on November 6,  2013.2)  We were hired to perform was shingle tear off, felt removal, and installation of new felt, ice guard, drip edge, and new shingle per contract. It is cus[redacted]ary within the industry when installing a new roof that the NEW DRIP EDGE being installed empties into the existing gutter system.  This is the work that was bid, and completed to [redacted] satisfaction.  At no time did I remove the existing gutter system, existing fascia, rake, soffit or siding.  It simply isn't part of doing a quality roof replacement, which I 100% stand by was completed, was correct, met the terms of the contract and was to the satisfaction of the homeowner.  The key interface between the new materials and the existing home structure is the DRIP EDGE to existing gutter system.  At the time of roof replacement, installation of the new drip edge was performed so that it provided sufficient coverage and drop into the existing gutter system.  At no point were my services expressed or implied that they extended to previous construction work regarding the existing gutter system / fascia / rake / soffit or otherwise.   The key point is that [redacted] was satisfied with the work and it wasn't until he attempted to have NEW services performed on the gutter, more than a YEAR LATER in December of 2014, by a different contractor for a gutter replacement that he had a complaint.   In order to understand his complaint, Colwell & Son attempted to meet with the contractor who had provided the erroneous information to the homeowner on-site to address the concerns.  We have and will continue to be consistent that any issues regarding new work and the new contractor are with the existing gutter system which had a correctly installed compatible drip edge at the time of work completion. The new work being sought was not related to a deficiently installed roof replacement.  Gutter replacement isn't part of a roof replacement, only that the drip edge / existing gutter interface which was correctly installed and functioning as intended for more than a year. Simply, Colwell & Son was not hired to do the work where issues arose with the new contractor and couldn't have foreseen any issues with the existing gutter system and future replacement problems that might arise. Thank you again for the open forum to respond to this multi-faceted service complaint.  I feel provided exactly the detailed work we were contracted to perform which was to the homeowner's satisfaction for more than a year.  I am a preferred installer for the [redacted] company who make premier shingles and roofing products.  I'm required to correctly install 100% of my jobs in order to maintain this preferred status.  In our more than 35 years of family owned business, this is the first complaint we've never been able to resolve, and I appreciate the forum to publically do so. Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com,Thank you for the opportunity to have an open forum regarding this complaint.  In my opinion, as an expert in the construction business, with 100% satisfied consumers (including this one for almost 18 months), and this being my first Revdex.com complaint in our more than 40 years in business, what we have here is an unresolved complaint regarding a third party's opinion vs. an incredibly clear work estimate completed for over a year to the customer's satisfaction.  As the consumer is relying heavily on the third party's opinion, I would like to note that I question the timing of the third party to remove a gutter system in the middle of winter (this is detrimental to the house weather structure as everything is in its most restricted state and any installed metal will expand and bow out) and would also challenge that this complaint was made in response to the 3rd party's flawed quote (seeking to increase the bid) to a currently functional weather protection "system" that was going to require additional metal installation per his forecast and bid replacement design.  I want it clearly noted that the system was completely functional for over a year and wasn't until a newly designed gutter system, different from the original, uncovered pre-existing conditions that I would never have had visibility to, nor ever have been expected to alter per the estimate and what was visible at the time the roof replacement was performed.  An excellent analogy would be that you hire a contractor to paint your walls, and then you hire a second contractor to replace your baseboards and then find there's drywall damage once the second contractor removes the baseboard.  There's no way the painter would have known it was even there to begin with.  It's just simply not part of the job.Even with all of these inconsistencies per my record as a business owner, flaws with timing and 3rd party information, and request for work not quoted, nor promised, and a completely functional weather system, I will at my own expense provide repair of the rakes.  I estimate this work to cost $200 of materials and labor.  I expect that this will resolve the matter and will require a legal release of further obligation once completed to the owners satisfaction in case of any future projects, except regarding the roofing replacement which I continue, and as always, will continue to stand behind as it was the work I was originally contracted to provide service.Thank you,[redacted]MESSAGE: Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  In response to [redacted] reply to my complaint, it is true I hired his company to install a new roof. However, Colwell & Son’s response fixates on the new drip edge as it applies to the gutter system and my complaint concerns the installation of new drip edge which fails miserably in providing adequate weather protection system wide not just the areas where gutters are present. In the bid, Colwell & Son agreed to install 471 linear foot at the rakes and eaves. During my discussion with Colwell & Son over what the bid included, depth/height of the new drip edge was not mentioned. Not being wise in the roofing process myself, I never knew to ask what depth/height of new drip edge would be installed assuming the contractor would install new drip edge comparable in depth/height to the old drip edge. Once installation of the drip edge began, it should have been blatantly obvious to the installer that the new drip edge was not adequately overlapping and in many areas not overlapping the aluminum siding which wraps the rakes and eaves. The failure to adequately overlap the rakes and eaves left them exposed to the elements and had I not been alerted of the problem by another contractor, we would have been looking at costly repairs from weather damage somewhere down the road.  Furthermore, the information provided us by the gutter contractor are far from erroneous and he had no reason to provide this information other than to warn us of the potential problems we faced if the problem wasn’t addressed. He took me around the home to point out the problems as I took photos and spoke to [redacted] Colwell on the phone and met in person with [redacted] so he could point out the problems. Thanks to you and the Revdex.com for addressing this complaint. Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response from the business in reference to complaint ID
[redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. 
Colwell and Son
continues to refer to “uncovered pre-existing conditions that I would
never have had visibility to”. As
stated in my previous response, my complaint concerns the
installation of new drip edge which fails miserably in providing adequate
weather protection system wide not just the areas behind the gutters. 
The comment, “An excellent analogy would be that you hire a
contractor to paint your walls, and then you hire a second contractor to
replace your baseboards and then find there's drywall damage once the second
contractor removes the baseboard.  There's no way the painter would have
known it was even there to begin with” simply does not fit in
this situation. It should have been blatantly obvious to the roofer/s who were hands-on
with the old and new drip edge at the time of installation that the new drip
edge was not adequately overlapping and in many areas not overlapping the aluminum siding which
wraps the rakes and eaves.
It should also be
noted, once again, that I went completely around my home with the contractor
who alerted us of the issues and evidence of an improperly sized drip edge was
prevalent from front to back. Again, the information provided us by the contractor
is far from erroneous and it should be noted, he too has an A+ rating with the
Revdex.com.
Thanks to you and the Revdex.com for addressing this complaint.
Regards,
[redacted]