Equity Restoration

Upon inspection of the punctured gas line, our project manager Mike B [redacted] determined that there was a partial nail lodged in the gas line that did not extend from the roof decking aboveThis would indicate that there had been a nail in the gas line prior to our roof installation, and that it was partially dislodged and broken in half when the old roofing was removedI thought that [redacted] was in agreement with Mike's determination until receiving this compliantIf there is evidence that a new roofing nail has punctured the gas line, we would in good faith accept responsibility for repair even though our contract clearly states that we are not responsible for preexisting issues with the home's structureI believe that a gas line installed within striking distance of a 1.25" roofing nail would be considered a preexisting issue with the home's constructionWe have already corrected some of the other service items listed in [redacted] ***'s complaint, but have been unable to complete some repairs because some of our supplies have been locked inside [redacted] ***'s garageWe had called and left a message for [redacted] to leave the supplies out so we could complete repairs, but our call was not returned, nor were the supplies set out for our installersWe have attempted to contact [redacted] by phone and have left three voicemails in an attempt to met with him to resolve all issues since receiving this complaint, but have not received a responseWe are willing to correct any issues and concerns [redacted] has as it is our goal to complete the project in it's entirety as soon as possible

We found this company to be very responsive, informative and helpfulThe salesman's knowledge was excellent and he was not pushy when we had questions about the condition of our roofHe provided an accurate assessment and recommendation for improvementThey came highly reccomended from a previous customer and we were very happy with the entire process

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response If you wish, you may update it before sending it.] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , The response is satisfactory, however, the repairs have not been completed as of 9/05/ The repair crew from [redacted] replaced the damaged gas line yesterday and I will be submitting the receipt to Equity restoration The total matched the estimate that has already been sent to MrS*** Regards, [redacted] ***

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], The response is satisfactory, however, the repairs have not been completed as of 9/05/14.  The repair crew from [redacted] replaced the damaged gas line yesterday and I will be submitting the receipt to Equity restoration.  The total matched the estimate that has already been sent to Mr. S[redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted] contracted with our company for a roof replacement. We had worked with her insurance company on the settlement and subsequent work as a result of a severe hail storm from the previous summer.
The insurance claim totaled $9364.13. The deductible, which is the financial...

responsibility of the homeowner, was $1000.00, making the net claim $8364.13. There was approximately $750.00 in repairs that were not roof related. These repairs were left off of our contract along with the allocated funds.  Therefore; the contract (attached) price was $8614.13 reflecting the amount approved by the insurance company towards he roof. A deposit of $4682.65 was collected, all work was completed as per contract, and a balance of $3931.48 remains past due. 
During installation there was a rain storm which caused interior water damages. The roof was thought to be "dried in" under felt paper as we were aware of the impending storm, however, it was not and there were leaks. We responded immediately to stop the water intrusion. A second insurance claim was filed and [redacted] was paid an additional $8100.00 by [redacted] for the interior damages. We are currently negotiating with [redacted] to settle the interior claim. 
I was not able to effectively communicate with [redacted] that although his mother had been inconvenienced by the incident, she had been very generously compensated by her insurance company for the interior repairs, and we were still owed the balance shown on the signed roofing contract. Therefore, I felt I needed to turn the matter over to my attorney. After receiving notice of our intent to file civil action, [redacted] made this complaint. On Friday 8/22/14, I received and email from my attorney stating that [redacted]'s attorney had advised her to make final payment to Equity Restoration. I also received a voice mail on 8/22/14  from [redacted] on behalf of his mother indicating that final payment had been sent. As of today 8/25/14, no payment has been received.
To clarify some points expressed in [redacted]'s complaint:
1. [redacted]'s roof was 3100 sq ft at a price of $8614 which is $2.78 per sq ft. This is well below the current market price of $3/sq ft. A similar roof completed for $2500 less would be done for $1.97/ sq ft. which is below our costs, and which we would never consider. That statement by [redacted] that similar roofs were done for $2500 less than his mother's is simply untrue.
2. Insurance companies pay the same amount for any roof regardless of age. The total is simply depreciated and more money is held by the insurance company until repairs are completed on older homes. The statement that other roofs in the neighborhood were done for more or less based on age is also untrue.
3. To my knowledge, once moisture is eliminated from the equation, mold cannot form or grow. Sealing and painting dry, water stained drywall is commonplace. Replacing the drywall when no structural damage has been done is excessive. The attic is not a closed space, but is ventilated by the ridge vent and soffit system.
4. I did not agree with the decision to file a second insurance claim because my company was willing to make the interior repairs without the need for a second insurance claim which will most likely have a very adverse affect on [redacted]'s insurance premium or even cause her to be dropped. Hail damage is considered a "no fault" claim for which insurance companies cannot raise an individual's insurance premium. Water intrusion during construction is seen as an "at fault" claim by the homeowner and by extension the contractor and will usually result in a premium increase or policy cancellation. 
Admittedly it was our mistake that led to the water damage, but we have acted in good faith throughout the process and completed our contract. [redacted] was compensated for all interior damages, and as [redacted] stated; there are no issues with the roof.
I have also attached the letter my attorney sent to [redacted] which further clarifies our position. 
We are currently awaiting the final payment [redacted] has promised on behalf of his mother.

At the time of receiving this rejection of our response, we had not had the chance to speak with [redacted]. I was also not aware of the detailed correspondence regarding the gas line between [redacted] and our project manager until discussing it with him after receiving this complaint. Our production manager Brian has been in contact with [redacted] to address all areas of concern. Most of the repairs on the punch list have been completed and we have informed [redacted] that we will accept full financial responsibility for the gas line repair. I hope [redacted] will agree that we are indeed making a good faith effort to address all areas of concern and complete the project to his satisfaction.

Upon inspection of the punctured gas line, our project manager Mike B[redacted] determined that there was a partial nail lodged in the gas line that did not extend from the roof decking above. This would indicate that there had been a nail in the gas line prior to our roof installation, and that it was...

partially dislodged and broken in half when the old roofing was removed. I thought that [redacted] was in agreement with Mike's determination until receiving this compliant. If there is evidence that a new roofing nail has punctured the gas line, we would in good faith accept responsibility for repair even though our contract clearly states that we are not responsible for preexisting issues with the home's structure. I believe that a gas line installed within striking distance of a 1.25" roofing nail would be considered a preexisting issue with the home's construction. We have already corrected some of the other service items listed in [redacted]'s complaint, but have been unable to complete some repairs because some of our supplies have been locked inside [redacted]'s garage. We had called and left a message for [redacted] to leave the supplies out so we could complete repairs, but our call was not returned, nor were the supplies set out for our installers. We have attempted to contact [redacted] by phone and have left three voicemails in an attempt to met with him to resolve all issues since receiving this complaint, but have not received a response. We are willing to correct any issues and concerns [redacted] has as it is our goal to complete the project in it's entirety as soon as possible.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: The gas company, [redacted],  was asked to provide an estimate for the repair to the gas line.  [redacted] provided that estimate and explained that it was not possible for the leak to have been from a preexisting condition, the line would have been leaking from the time the nail punctured the pipe and the original roof was installed 8 years ago.  This information was provided to Mr. B[redacted] along with the contact information for [redacted].  A borescope was used to take a picture which clearly shows a nail protruding from the bottom side of the roof and touching the gas line.  We know the nail did not remain in the pipe because there was a hissing noise coming from the pipe in the area of the nail when the gas was turned back on.  A jpg image file clearly showing  a nail protruding though the roof and next to the punctured gas line was provided to Mr. B[redacted]. The file is attached.  A paper copy was given to the siding installer who is an Equity employee when he was on site.  The response from Mr. B[redacted] was "its not our nail".  There were no other contractors on the roof using nail guns to install shingles on the day the leak occurred and Equity should have removed the existing nails when they stripped the old roof.As stated, Mr B[redacted] was informed of the gas pipe issue several times prior to the complaint.  I have copies of all of the the e mail messages and can provide them.  Equity was provided the evidence and has not responded in good faith.  As to the two bundles of roofing shingles.  The people who installed the roof on the house said they did not have enough shingles to do the shed roof.  They said they would return the next day and complete the job and asked to leave them in the driveway.  The material sat in the driveway for over three weeks.  I moved it into the garage so that I would not get a complaint from the homeowners association.  The siding person left an additional pile of materials on the side of the garage for several weeks.  The cardboard box of nails deteriorated and there were nails in the grass.  The material was there long enough to kill the grass under it.  It was cleaned up after I contacted Mr. B[redacted] providing pictures of the mess and other items requiring completion or repair because they were improperly installed.As to the material being required to complete the work, The roof is installed on the house and the shed.  I will gladly return the shingles to Equity when they have completed the remaining work.  I have no reason to believe it will be removed if I put it back out.  They have left a pile of siding and windows in the neighbor across the street's yard for over a week now.  They told him they would return the next day to complete that job.  The only item in my complaint that has been corrected was replacing the roof on the shed.There were two voice messages left on my cell phone yesterday (8/13/14) and today.  The person spoke so softly that we could not understand the messages.  I called the office today and was told that it was Brian S[redacted] and he was not in.  I left a message that if he wants to meet and discuss the remaining issues it must be after 4 PM on 8/15/14 or after 4 any day next week.Equity said they are willing to complete the project, however, they made no effort to do so or contact us prior to receiving this complaint.Our goal is to have Equity Restoration, LLC complete the work they were contracted to do and do it properly.  The siding that was replaced on the side and back of the house does not match up with the siding that was not replaced.  Tyler tried to say it does not look that bad.  My neighbors who are still deciding on which contractor to use do not agree.  I will send Mr. S[redacted] a copy of the email I have already provided to Mr. B[redacted] and Brandon with pictures and a punch list.[redacted]
Regards,
Robert Novak

We found this company to be very responsive, informative and helpful. The salesman's knowledge was excellent and he was not pushy when we had questions about the condition of our roof. He provided an accurate assessment and recommendation for improvement. They came highly reccomended from a previous customer and we were very happy with the entire process.

Review: Our problem is inability to come to a fair, equitable and amicable resolution for my widowed 83 y.o. Mother with billing problem and damages as result of water intrusion due to improper management of roof replacement by Equity Restorations (ER-[redacted]) of [redacted], PA. No issue at this time with workmanship as no additional water intrusion has been detected with many severe downpours since roof has been completed.

There may be an issue with materials provisioned for job and inquiry is being made of [redacted], the supplier of the roofing system.

ER-[redacted] insists on total payment of $8,364.13 while CORRECT TOTAL is only $7,617.46. We know other roofs in the neighborhood were done for totals of +/-$5000 or so because they were older roofs and prorated, so insurance companies paid less. So some of the neighbors had their roofs of similar size done for $2500 less than my 83 y.o, widowed Mother. further cause for suspicion? you be the judge.

INITIAL AGREEMENT states “Total Sale Price of Job is… (via handwritten note) TOTAL PAID by [redacted]” as signed by my Mother and ER-[redacted] Representative, Brandon Pierce” as executed on 13 January, 2014.

Furthermore, ER-[redacted] refuses to correct invoice for services rendered and continues to include amount of $746.67 for work NOT performed.

Furthermore, ER-[redacted] continues to minimize the damage and trauma suffered by my Mother due to their actions with 1) starting project WITHOUT A PERMIT; and 2) on scheduled day of completion, removing 4 workers from job at 10am soon after time inspector approved to proceed, and removing supervisor and sole co-worker for most of the afternoon causing the roof to not be finished before the rains came.

In the course of events, ER-[redacted] Owner-President G[redacted] offered to “send over his painters to fix the problems”. Painting over water damage as fix? Along with [redacted] Claim Adjuster, we think NOT!

In the course of events, ER [redacted] Owner-President G[redacted] has taken umbrage with water damage situation being handled thru Insurance Company. Interesting that G[redacted] would take offense with the same claim process that seems to drive their business.

in the course of events, ER-[redacted] President G[redacted] offered, and we accepted, $250 credit "in light of the inconveniences caused by the leak from a rain storm during the installation". We’ve accepted this small gesture as partial credit for troubles. NO INVOICE has been provided with this adjustment nor correction of total amount.

After a restless night listening for arrival of storm, it is only through MY PERSONAL INTERVENTION in the attic with flashlight and catch basins in hand that many of the main leaks were identified and intercepted. Even so, water damaged ceilings and walls in the garage and all but 2 rooms in the home.

Fortunately, storm arrived later than forecasted, was less severe than forecasted, and was of shorter duration than forecasted. Rain had mostly subsided by the time the job supervisor at his own volition came to check and made changes to stop the leaks.

Furthermore, ER-[redacted] had NO CONTINGENCY plan. When contacted at time of water intrusion, Office Manager said "there is probably nothing (they) can do at this time". When Owner-President G[redacted] called me 61 mins after my contacting office, he only offered a "sincere apology". Even ER-[redacted] “Project Manager” (and Sales Person) when he stopped by for signature on completion form, at time he said he just learned of the troubles, said ER-[redacted] ought to have had blowers brought in.

Furthermore, ER-[redacted] President G[redacted] by his own admission when queried about his knowledge of MOLD and how soon it can form, he admitted knowing little about MOLD. several documents in the closet were dripped upon and went unnoticed at time of incident. these documents were discovered later with MOLD already growing. Had we NOT contacted Water Mitigation Company , [redacted] who responded MOST EXPEDITIOUSLY with 8 (eight) commercial air movers (blowers), we would have had a BIGGER problem had we left moisture to air dry.

Would seem to me that owner-operator of a roofing company would know consequences of water intrusion into closed spaces with high temperatures and formation of MOLD.

Furthermore, ER-[redacted] has put my Mother at risk for $1000 deductible with claim submitted to insurance company for repair of water damage.

Furthermore, due to need for my personal involvement, inability to use my original airline ticket at the time of my return due to delay also caused me to incur personal expense of $574.00 for full fare ticket to return to my home in [redacted], NV, with other fares unavailable due to start of bowling tournament in [redacted].

TOTAL PRICE paid by [redacted] is $7,617.46 as paid by [redacted] and not $8,364.13 as billed and alleged by ER-[redacted].

In summary, root cause for the water intrusion and resulting damage is because of 1) delay due to ER starting job without permit and 2) despite verbal assurances, inadequate human resources were on site to complete the job before the long expected storm which had been in the forecast for at least 5 days.

In writing, on 13 June, 2014, we made fair and equitable offer for resolution of this matter. Our offer was not acted upon by ER-[redacted]. As of 1 August, offer expired and ER-[redacted] President G[redacted] was so informed.

Instead of settling, ER-[redacted] has chosen to engage a law firm to send “collection letter” adding insult to injury.

I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my ability.Desired Settlement: Would like FINAL RESOLUTION to be settling this matter in fair, equitable and amicable manner and moving on!

Business

Response:

[redacted] contracted with our company for a roof replacement. We had worked with her insurance company on the settlement and subsequent work as a result of a severe hail storm from the previous summer.The insurance claim totaled $9364.13. The deductible, which is the financial responsibility of the homeowner, was $1000.00, making the net claim $8364.13. There was approximately $750.00 in repairs that were not roof related. These repairs were left off of our contract along with the allocated funds. Therefore; the contract (attached) price was $8614.13 reflecting the amount approved by the insurance company towards he roof. A deposit of $4682.65 was collected, all work was completed as per contract, and a balance of $3931.48 remains past due.

Review: A roofing nail punctured a gas line located just below the roof. Mike B[redacted] from Equity was called when the leak was discovered while the roofers were still installing the new roof. [redacted] confirmed the leak within one hour.

A photograph was taken with a borescope showing a roofing nail protruding through the plywood directly above the flexible gas line Mr. B[redacted]'s response was that Equity Restoration will not pay for the repairs because it is not their nail.

Additional issues are damaged downspouts that were removed by siding installer, siding which was improperly installed, flashing that has not been repaired, a portion of the siding that was not replaced, siding on the shed that has not been replaced, a basement window not replaced and screens not replaced.Desired Settlement: Equity Restoration should accept responsibility for the damage to the gas line and pay for the repair. The incorrect siding needs to be replaced with the correct material and installed properly. Remaining repairs need to be completed.

Contract states approximate completion date 2-4 days and was dated 5/23/14. This is a clear breach of contract.

Business

Response:

Upon inspection of the punctured gas line, our project manager Mike B[redacted] determined that there was a partial nail lodged in the gas line that did not extend from the roof decking above. This would indicate that there had been a nail in the gas line prior to our roof installation, and that it was partially dislodged and broken in half when the old roofing was removed. I thought that [redacted] was in agreement with Mike's determination until receiving this compliant. If there is evidence that a new roofing nail has punctured the gas line, we would in good faith accept responsibility for repair even though our contract clearly states that we are not responsible for preexisting issues with the home's structure. I believe that a gas line installed within striking distance of a 1.25" roofing nail would be considered a preexisting issue with the home's construction. We have already corrected some of the other service items listed in [redacted]'s complaint, but have been unable to complete some repairs because some of our supplies have been locked inside [redacted]'s garage. We had called and left a message for [redacted] to leave the supplies out so we could complete repairs, but our call was not returned, nor were the supplies set out for our installers. We have attempted to contact [redacted] by phone and have left three voicemails in an attempt to met with him to resolve all issues since receiving this complaint, but have not received a response. We are willing to correct any issues and concerns [redacted] has as it is our goal to complete the project in it's entirety as soon as possible.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: The gas company, [redacted], was asked to provide an estimate for the repair to the gas line. [redacted] provided that estimate and explained that it was not possible for the leak to have been from a preexisting condition, the line would have been leaking from the time the nail punctured the pipe and the original roof was installed 8 years ago. This information was provided to Mr. B[redacted] along with the contact information for [redacted]. A borescope was used to take a picture which clearly shows a nail protruding from the bottom side of the roof and touching the gas line. We know the nail did not remain in the pipe because there was a hissing noise coming from the pipe in the area of the nail when the gas was turned back on. A jpg image file clearly showing a nail protruding though the roof and next to the punctured gas line was provided to Mr. B[redacted]. The file is attached. A paper copy was given to the siding installer who is an Equity employee when he was on site. The response from Mr. B[redacted] was "its not our nail". There were no other contractors on the roof using nail guns to install shingles on the day the leak occurred and Equity should have removed the existing nails when they stripped the old roof.As stated, Mr B[redacted] was informed of the gas pipe issue several times prior to the complaint. I have copies of all of the the e mail messages and can provide them. Equity was provided the evidence and has not responded in good faith. As to the two bundles of roofing shingles. The people who installed the roof on the house said they did not have enough shingles to do the shed roof. They said they would return the next day and complete the job and asked to leave them in the driveway. The material sat in the driveway for over three weeks. I moved it into the garage so that I would not get a complaint from the homeowners association. The siding person left an additional pile of materials on the side of the garage for several weeks. The cardboard box of nails deteriorated and there were nails in the grass. The material was there long enough to kill the grass under it. It was cleaned up after I contacted Mr. B[redacted] providing pictures of the mess and other items requiring completion or repair because they were improperly installed.As to the material being required to complete the work, The roof is installed on the house and the shed. I will gladly return the shingles to Equity when they have completed the remaining work. I have no reason to believe it will be removed if I put it back out. They have left a pile of siding and windows in the neighbor across the street's yard for over a week now. They told him they would return the next day to complete that job. The only item in my complaint that has been corrected was replacing the roof on the shed.There were two voice messages left on my cell phone yesterday (8/13/14) and today. The person spoke so softly that we could not understand the messages. I called the office today and was told that it was Brian S[redacted] and he was not in. I left a message that if he wants to meet and discuss the remaining issues it must be after 4 PM on 8/15/14 or after 4 any day next week.Equity said they are willing to complete the project, however, they made no effort to do so or contact us prior to receiving this complaint.Our goal is to have Equity Restoration, LLC complete the work they were contracted to do and do it properly. The siding that was replaced on the side and back of the house does not match up with the siding that was not replaced. Tyler tried to say it does not look that bad. My neighbors who are still deciding on which contractor to use do not agree. I will send Mr. S[redacted] a copy of the email I have already provided to Mr. B[redacted] and Brandon with pictures and a punch list.[redacted]

Regards,

Robert Novak

Business

Response:

At the time of receiving this rejection of our response, we had not had the chance to speak with [redacted]. I was also not aware of the detailed correspondence regarding the gas line between [redacted] and our project manager until discussing it with him after receiving this complaint. Our production manager Brian has been in contact with [redacted] to address all areas of concern. Most of the repairs on the punch list have been completed and we have informed [redacted] that we will accept full financial responsibility for the gas line repair. I hope [redacted] will agree that we are indeed making a good faith effort to address all areas of concern and complete the project to his satisfaction.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], The response is satisfactory, however, the repairs have not been completed as of 9/05/14. The repair crew from [redacted] replaced the damaged gas line yesterday and I will be submitting the receipt to Equity restoration. The total matched the estimate that has already been sent to Mr. S[redacted].

Regards,