d-7 Roofing

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:The lack of integrity of Bee Creek Automotive is very evident after reading this response***, the owner of the shop was aware my car showed codes for a catalytic converter problemIf no catalytic converter problems were evident and being addressed between Bee Creek Automotive and I, there would have been no reason for Bee Creek Automotive to state they advised me to take my car to the dealership for catalytic converter problems that could be under warranty“We did not pull any catalytic converter codes in our shop we still tried to help her by advising her that her car should be taken to the dealership to address the problem before the car reached the 80,miles limit.” Friday, September 23rd, was the first verbal communication between *** and I about a catalytic converter having a warranty up to 80,milesThe pictures are inconclusive as they could be any parts from any vehicleThere is no indication that those parts in those pictures are from my *** ***At the very minimum Bee Creek Automotive should refund me half of the amount I paid for an Intake Manifold that did not need to be replaced. Regards,
*** ***

This email is in response to a complaint made by Ms. [redacted]:,Our shop worked on Ms.[redacted]'s vehicle on August 7,2015 and her vehicle's mileage at the time was 55,605. Her vehicle came in with a check engine light on issue.  After checking the vehicle we found a defective turbo charger...

which needed to be replaced. At that time we informed her of our findings and she did not approve the work needed to fix her vehicle issues. During this visit we informed her that her issue was under manufacturers warranty and it is written on the invoice we handed out to her at the time her vehicle was released from the shop. Ms. [redacted] was informed both verbally and in writing that her vehicle was under warranty and we can not be held responsible for her choice to disregard our recommendations.  In response to Ms. [redacted]'s allegations that all of our repair estimates were done over the phone she is partially correct because indeed we do give 90% of our customers repair estimates over the phone but our service advisor has a written estimate he prepares and he talks to the customer on the phone. At  our  customers requests we are able to email or fax over our written estimates, in Ms. [redacted]'s case she did not request anything be sent to her. On May 19, 2016 her vehicle was brought in with 81,256 . Before doing the work needed on her vehicle we prepared a written estimate and called Ms. [redacted] on the phone and with her approval we performed a tune up and transmission service. Lastly, on September 19, 2016 Ms. [redacted] brought her vehicle in showing a check engine light on and after hooking up our scanner on her vehicle the codes that came up showed her vehicle was indicating lean condition and also too much pressure on crank case in addition to oil leaking I would like to point out that at this time our diagnostics did not pull a code indicating catalytic converter troubles. We prepared a written estimate and spoke on the phone with her at that time she approved work to fix the codes. The repair done on her vehicle during this visit did fix the problems with the car. Ms. [redacted]'s remarks that no history could be recalled by the person giving her a second opinion are indeed true because the repairs had been made on her vehicle by us, therefore the car showed no troubles in that particular area. In regards to her comment about not being able to tell if the catalytic converted had been replaced. Along with this email I am sending attachments of pictures showing the part that was taken out of her car and the part that was installed in her car.  Overall my response to her allegations is that our shop is not liable in refunding her for her vehicle's repairs because she approved the work quoted to her at the time for the troubles her car came in for, and although we did not pull any catalytic converter codes in our shop we still tried to help her by advising her that her car should be taken to the dealership to address the problem before the car reached the 80,000 miles limit. Ms. [redacted] chose not to take her vehicle to the dealership and the vehicle was driven over 54,000 miles in 13 months. The repair on her vehicle was done and we charged a fair price for the repair. Thank youp.s Along with this email I am attaching the invoices of Ms. [redacted]'s repairs along with pictures of the old catalytic converter and the new part installed. [redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/06/08) */
A major hailstorm hit The [redacted] apartment complex in Denver, which is owned by the development company [redacted] shortly after construction. [redacted] contracted with [redacted] to supervise the construction of the...

initial project and oversee the re-roof project at the apartment complex following the hailstorm. d-7 Roofing, LLC was a sub-contractor hired to complete the initial roofing project and the re-roof project. d-7 Roofing LLC provided the property owners with a flier for their residents explaining the roofing process and company contact information. This flier was sent to each resident along with a letter from the property management company.
During the re-roof project, d-7 Roofing LLC was notified, by a representative of [redacted] of a couple damage claims directly related to the re-roof process. Specifically, tire damage from roofing nails. d-7 Roofing LLC worked directly with these individuals to resolve their claims successfully. D-7 Roofing LLC was made aware of Mr. [redacted]'s damage claim and he was contacted by d-7 Roofing LLC in early February 2015.
Mr. [redacted] provided d-7 Roofing LLC with written documentation of the reported damage to items on the balcony of his apartment. The written documentation included four photographs of a string of LCD Christmas style lights, window screen frame, black BBQ cover and a snow covered cooler chest. Within the documentation, Mr. [redacted] provided URL's to companies who sell the items he claimed were damaged during the roofing process. Mr. [redacted] also requested that he be reimbursed for cleaning and a per day loss of use of the balcony space - in spite of the fact that the balcony was covered in snow. Mr. [redacted] was informed that d-7 would investigate his claim and determine to what extent the roofing process caused the damage he was claiming. Mr. [redacted] was informed that d-7 Roofing LLC was willing to make a reasonable settlement on items directly damaged during the roofing process. Mr. [redacted] insisted that the only way for d-7 Roofing LLC to resolve the claim was to 'pay' him as outlined.
d-7 Roofing LLC reviewed the photographs provided by Mr. [redacted].
The LCD Christmas style lights appeared to have been dislodged from the hanging method and were hanging near the corner of the sliding glass door.
The screen frame appeared to be creased near the center portion of the bottom frame member but the screen itself was undamaged. No markings from roofing debris were observed near the location of the crease.
The BBQ cover photograph only showed a small area of the BBQ cover - it was extensively weathered and torn. The damage didn't appear to be consistent to the claim of being the result of roofing damage.
The cooler chest damage only depicted a single corner that was broke and missing a small two-inch piece of the plastic. The cooler was covered with a layer of snow yet there were no markings from roofing debris around the area of the damage.
d-7 Roofing LLC sent Mr. [redacted] an email correspondence indicating that the damage he was reporting was extremely unusual for a re-roof project and he was the only tenant reporting such damage. Mr. [redacted] replied that his balcony was the only balcony used to access the roof but also stated that he observed the crew using a large ladder to access the roof. d-7 Roofing attempted to meet with Mr. [redacted] but attempts were delayed due to scheduling conflicts (d-7 employee sickness and the unavailability of both parties). Mr. [redacted] ultimately demanded resolution by a self-imposed deadline.
d-7 Roofing LLC attempted to successfully and reasonably resolve this situation with Mr. [redacted]. d-7 Roofing LLC met with the representatives of the property owners. d-7 Roofing LLC informed them that it seemed as if Mr. [redacted] was using the re-roof project as an opportunity to replace items that were previously damaged or overused. We also informed them that d-7 Roofing LLC was interested in resolving this issue in an appropriate and timely manner. Because of the appearance of an opportunistic claim, d-7 Roofing LLC was encouraged to wait for Mr. [redacted] to re-contact the property owners or d-7 Roofing LLC before any other action was taken.
The next time d-7 Roofing LLC received any communication from Mr. [redacted] was through a letter from an attorney retained to demand reimbursement or face legal proceedings. No additional correspondence was received from Mr. [redacted] or on his behalf until d-7 Roofing LLC was notified of this Revdex.com complaint.
d-7 Roofing LLC remains committed to successfully and reasonably resolving matters of dispute resulting from our business practices.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/06/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
d-7 still has not reimbursed me for the damage its employees did to my property. The damage occurred almost six months ago and contrary to its allegation that it "remains committed to successfully and reasonably resolving matters of dispute resulting from its business practices," d-7 has failed to return my direct attempts at communications or those sent by my attorney. Now d-7 appears to be defame my reputation by accusing me of "using the re-roof project as an opportunity to replace items that were previously damaged or overused." This simply is not true. Time and again I offered d-7 the opportunity to visit my apartment and observe the damage its employees did and the garbage they left on my balcony. Time and again d-7 came up with excuses as to why they could not do so. After months of leaving the site as-is, I finally gave in and cleaned the area myself so that I could once again begin to enjoy the full use of my apartment.
I have provided d-7 with documented proof of the damage its employees committed, offered it months to inspect, repair and restore and tried to communicate with them over half a dozen times to no avail. By its own admission, d-7 "was encouraged to wait" on this matter and it has certainly done so. Its response to my complaint here appears to be nothing more than another stalling tactic. I have a right to be reimbursed for the damage d-7 did to my property. It borders on the obscene that it has taken d-7 almost six months to even formally address this situation.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2015/07/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This has been an issue going on since Feb. 2015 which is still unresolved. d-7 states that they are interested in resolving this in an appropriate and timely manner, however they have refused to answer any form of communication from me or my lawyer. d-7's proposed resolution fails to state any specific action items to resolve this issue.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 19, 2015/08/29) */
d7 reached a compromise with Mr. [redacted] of a doubtful and disputed claim. Mr. [redacted] provided d-7 with a property damage release and d-7 provided Mr. [redacted] a fiduciary settlement. Both parties have agreed to close this Revdex.com complaint in a manner that indicates "mutually resolved".

d-7 Roofing installed a roof that leaked with the first rain, resulting in interior damage. To date, they have not repaired the interior damage.
d-7 Roofing installed a new roof this summer that leaked and caused interior damage to drywall/plaster. They have come out to repair the exterior, but have not made any effort to repair the interior damage.
The roof was installed in mid-July 2013.
The damage occurred in mid-September 2013.
The total cost of the roof was $9729, paid by check
Sales rep: [redacted]