I just had my exterior fascia, trim, rakes all wrap with aluminum and vinyl soffits installed at my house NC Exteriors did a great job that went beyond my expectations
The following are the observations and opinions of the customer. The customer does no claim to have any expertise in workmanship.
The customer desired to change the color of the roof from white to black and to further seal the roof for longer life. The customer was open for techniques and suggestions by a professional. There was not a roofing problem, such as leaks.
The Office Manager of North Carolina Exteriors (NCE) was contacted and a request was made to receive an inspection and an estimate for the roof at a residence in Bahama, North Carolina.
On July 15, 2015, the customer received a visit, as requested, from a NCE sales representative. The rep. inspected the roof. He, specifically, stated that the customer did not need a new roof. He commended the very old heavy gauge steel shingles. The rep. recommended and the customer contracted with the rep. to perform specific coatings to seal and change the color of the roof to the 864 square foot residence. The roofing contract was for Power wash, Prime, Paint with two coats of DTM black gloss paint to the metal roof. Additionally the contract included replacement of smaller sections of asphalt shingles. The contract called for a referral fee of $100. to be paid to a person referring. The price was $4720.
The customer was present and monitored all phases of the work.
In July and August of 2015 work began by a sub-contractor of NCE. The customer repeatedly alerted NCE of on-going irregularities in the performance of the work. The workers: (1) "Prepared" the roof for coatings by pressure washing the roof upwards, from the ground level, blowing loose several sections of vent eves, and possibly loosening metal tiles; (2) Kept missing areas while painting; (3) Used one gallon of watered down latex primer to prime 864 square feet of roof; (4) Used four gallons of latex product for the first coat and was not aware that a second coat was contracted.
Due to on-going complaints to NCE the owner dispatched one of his executive staff to supervise the workers. The executive then witnessed, probably, the most egregious error; (5) The painters sprayed the second coat using oil based coating on the roof. (The can labels were similar) The customer discovered the error and pointed it out to the executive and took photographs of all the different cans on the ground. The executive arranged to have four more cans of the proper latex coating be delivered to the site, for a third coat.
(6) All the coatings were done downward, by the worker straddling the top ridge and upward, from the top of a ladder. The over-spray, downward then upward, of the gloss paint left a flat sheen in the middle, horizontally, across all sections of the roof.
The executive insured that latex over oil over latex would not be an adherence problem and that the flat sheen would dry equal with the gloss.
The customer left for the winter and returned in March and discovered large air bubbles particularly on the east and south sections of the roof. The middle of the metal roof still had the flat sheen on the glossy roof. This effect was obviously caused by the over-spray landing in the middle as the painter sprayed the glossy coating down from the top and up from the bottom of the roof; (7) Additionally, the bottom edges of the metal tiles on the top one third of the roof did not receive adequate applications of the black coatings, as evidence of their remaining the uncoated original white.
(8) The owner, indicating an adherence complaint, caused his friend, a Wake Forest paint supplier, to visit the residence and take gouges (down to metal) off a northwest section of the roof for laboratory examination by the paint manufacturer. This small section or the quality of the products was never in question by the customer. The official manufacturer's report supported the integrity of the products (of course) and was critical of the old metal shingles' prior coatings. It mentioned an oily leaching coming down over the recently applied product.
One could judge that this leaching could be a manifestation from failure to coat the lower edges of the tiles and/or the instant applications of latex over oil over latex coatings. Additionally, leaching could occur from the former coating leaching down from under the lower edge of the uncoated shingles on the top third of the roof sections. Close-up photography displays that the lower edges of the tiles were white (original coating) and had not been coated with the new black product.
(9) However, the report conclusions included that an unsuccessful adhesion could, possibly, have been mitigated by proper preparations. NCE, acting as the contractor, should have recognized and affected the need for proper and effective preparations.
(10) Additionally, the contract called for a referral fee to be paid to a person who recommended NCE. The referral fee was not paid.
The roof is actually in a worst condition after the performance by NCE
I just had my exterior fascia, trim, rakes all wrap with aluminum and vinyl soffits installed at my house NC Exteriors did a great job that went beyond my expectations
The following are the observations and opinions of the customer. The customer does no claim to have any expertise in workmanship.
The customer desired to change the color of the roof from white to black and to further seal the roof for longer life. The customer was open for techniques and suggestions by a professional. There was not a roofing problem, such as leaks.
The Office Manager of North Carolina Exteriors (NCE) was contacted and a request was made to receive an inspection and an estimate for the roof at a residence in Bahama, North Carolina.
On July 15, 2015, the customer received a visit, as requested, from a NCE sales representative. The rep. inspected the roof. He, specifically, stated that the customer did not need a new roof. He commended the very old heavy gauge steel shingles. The rep. recommended and the customer contracted with the rep. to perform specific coatings to seal and change the color of the roof to the 864 square foot residence. The roofing contract was for Power wash, Prime, Paint with two coats of DTM black gloss paint to the metal roof. Additionally the contract included replacement of smaller sections of asphalt shingles. The contract called for a referral fee of $100. to be paid to a person referring. The price was $4720.
The customer was present and monitored all phases of the work.
In July and August of 2015 work began by a sub-contractor of NCE. The customer repeatedly alerted NCE of on-going irregularities in the performance of the work. The workers: (1) "Prepared" the roof for coatings by pressure washing the roof upwards, from the ground level, blowing loose several sections of vent eves, and possibly loosening metal tiles; (2) Kept missing areas while painting; (3) Used one gallon of watered down latex primer to prime 864 square feet of roof; (4) Used four gallons of latex product for the first coat and was not aware that a second coat was contracted.
Due to on-going complaints to NCE the owner dispatched one of his executive staff to supervise the workers. The executive then witnessed, probably, the most egregious error; (5) The painters sprayed the second coat using oil based coating on the roof. (The can labels were similar) The customer discovered the error and pointed it out to the executive and took photographs of all the different cans on the ground. The executive arranged to have four more cans of the proper latex coating be delivered to the site, for a third coat.
(6) All the coatings were done downward, by the worker straddling the top ridge and upward, from the top of a ladder. The over-spray, downward then upward, of the gloss paint left a flat sheen in the middle, horizontally, across all sections of the roof.
The executive insured that latex over oil over latex would not be an adherence problem and that the flat sheen would dry equal with the gloss.
The customer left for the winter and returned in March and discovered large air bubbles particularly on the east and south sections of the roof. The middle of the metal roof still had the flat sheen on the glossy roof. This effect was obviously caused by the over-spray landing in the middle as the painter sprayed the glossy coating down from the top and up from the bottom of the roof; (7) Additionally, the bottom edges of the metal tiles on the top one third of the roof did not receive adequate applications of the black coatings, as evidence of their remaining the uncoated original white.
(8) The owner, indicating an adherence complaint, caused his friend, a Wake Forest paint supplier, to visit the residence and take gouges (down to metal) off a northwest section of the roof for laboratory examination by the paint manufacturer. This small section or the quality of the products was never in question by the customer. The official manufacturer's report supported the integrity of the products (of course) and was critical of the old metal shingles' prior coatings. It mentioned an oily leaching coming down over the recently applied product.
One could judge that this leaching could be a manifestation from failure to coat the lower edges of the tiles and/or the instant applications of latex over oil over latex coatings. Additionally, leaching could occur from the former coating leaching down from under the lower edge of the uncoated shingles on the top third of the roof sections. Close-up photography displays that the lower edges of the tiles were white (original coating) and had not been coated with the new black product.
(9) However, the report conclusions included that an unsuccessful adhesion could, possibly, have been mitigated by proper preparations. NCE, acting as the contractor, should have recognized and affected the need for proper and effective preparations.
(10) Additionally, the contract called for a referral fee to be paid to a person who recommended NCE. The referral fee was not paid.
The roof is actually in a worst condition after the performance by NCE