Exteriors of CT LLC

Co [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:The contractor has misrepresented the entire situationConnecticut Exteriors was notified of the damage through [redacted] Management, the condo association property managerThey requested a meeting at my residence which was unnecessaryPrior to that meeting, and by admission during that meeting, the contractor entered onto my property unlawfully, without permission,and stated they inspected the awning for damageThey admitted this at the start of the meeting we had and were asked to leave the property after they refused to acknowledge the damage they caused I have had two awning dealers, Manchester Awning, and The Awning Place inspect the damages and provide quotes for replacementThrough the condo management company, I offered the contractor to arrange a replacement in their own and their solution is to simply ignore that the issue exists and they caused the damagesI have pictures of the damages and the damages the contractor caused are the only damages that exist on the awning The Awning Place stated the awning is in good condition and aluminum awnings such as this lastnwell over yearsAll I am asking the contractor to do is to do the right thing, and repair/replace the damages they caused instead of leaving an innocent homeowner stuck with the expense Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Again, the contractor, Exteriors of CT LLC, is attempting to distort the situation, and shift focusThis appears to be how they conduct their business, and is what they attempted to do when we met to discuss the situation The contractor was told to leave my property after disclosing that he (and his associates) entered onto my property, without my permission and my being present, and inspected the damaged awningThe first statement the contractor made during our meeting was that he looked at my awning and it was filled with dents, which is an outright lie (again, this seems to be how they do business)The only damages on the awning were caused during the re-roofing operationIt is clear, and noticeable - there is no oxidation on any of the dents/markings created by debris falling from the roofThe awning needs to be cleaned, but it is in excellent condition - other than the damages that were caused during the re-roofing workThe contractor is correct in stating they covered the awning, but apparently the covering was not adequate, and the damages occurred.The contractors statement that the damages were pre-existing are another lie, and demonstrate the manner in which the business conducts itself - disreputablyThe Exteriors of CT LLC offered $for an awning that is valued at approximately $and cannot be repaired (I had two reputable awning dealers inspect the awning, and provide quotes to repair/replace the unit - The Awning Place, and Manchester Awnings)I am asking that the contractor, Exteriors of CT LLC, conduct their business in a reputable manner, and do the right thing by covering the cost to replace the unit because of the damages they causedI just purchased this condominium in April of It was thoroughly inspected, and nothing was damagedAgain, their statements to the contrary indicate the manner in which they conduct their business Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Exteriors of Connecticut performed projects which included new windows and siding Both projects turned out extremely well We've had many local neighbors tell us how good our house looked after both projects I would highly recommend this company

Co [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The contractor has misrepresented the entire situationConnecticut Exteriors was notified of the damage through [redacted] Management, the condo association property managerThey requested a meeting at my residence which was unnecessaryPrior to that meeting, and by admission during that meeting, the contractor entered onto my property unlawfully, without permission,and stated they inspected the awning for damageThey admitted this at the start of the meeting we had and were asked to leave the property after they refused to acknowledge the damage they caused I have had two awning dealers, Manchester Awning, and The Awning Place inspect the damages and provide quotes for replacementThrough the condo management company, I offered the contractor to arrange a replacement in their own and their solution is to simply ignore that the issue exists and they caused the damagesI have pictures of the damages and the damages the contractor caused are the only damages that exist on the awning The Awning Place stated the awning is in good condition and aluminum awnings such as this lastnwell over years All I am asking the contractor to do is to do the right thing, and repair/replace the damages they caused instead of leaving an innocent homeowner stuck with the expense Sincerely, [redacted] ***

I am in receipt and am not surprised that [redacted] does not acknowledge his screaming and swearing tirade when we met to try and resolve his complaintUpon hearing of the complaint we examined the awning which is on association property and found existing damage on the awning which we have provided pictures of to youKeep in mind we cover all the awnings and walls with plywood and tarps and do not open the awning prior to roofing the buildingWe are still not certain we did any damageIn an effort to be reasonable about thisWe offered the unit owner $to help compensate for the awningWe think our offer was fair and reasonablePlease contact Di [redacted] management ( [redacted] to verify the events and offer I have describedPlease advise

Complaint: 11***
I am rejecting this response because:Again, the contractor, Exteriors of CT LLC, is attempting to distort the situation, and shift focusThis appears to be how they conduct their business, and is what they attempted to do when we met to discuss the situationThe contractor was told to leave my property after disclosing that he (and his associates) entered onto my property, without my permission and my being present, and inspected the damaged awning.The first statement the contractor made during our meeting was that he looked at my awning and it was filled with dents, which is an outright lie (again, this seems to be how they do business)The only damages on the awning were caused during the re-roofing operationIt is clear, and noticeable - there is no oxidation on any of the dents/markings created by debris falling from the roofThe awning needs to be cleaned, but it is in excellent condition - other than the damages that were caused during the re-roofing work.The contractor is correct in stating they covered the awning, but apparently the covering was not adequate, and the damages occurred.The contractors statement that the damages were pre-existing are another lie, and demonstrate the manner in which the business conducts itself - disreputably.The Exteriors of CT LLC offered $for an awning that is valued at approximately $and cannot be repaired (I had two reputable awning dealers inspect the awning, and provide quotes to repair/replace the unit - The Awning Place, and Manchester Awnings).I am asking that the contractor, Exteriors of CT LLC, conduct their business in a reputable manner, and do the right thing by covering the cost to replace the unit because of the damages they causedI just purchased this condominium in April of It was thoroughly inspected, and nothing was damagedAgain, their statements to the contrary indicate the manner in which they conduct their business
Sincerely,
*** ***

Complaint: 11[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Again, the contractor, Exteriors of CT LLC, is attempting to distort the situation, and shift focus. This appears to be how they conduct their business, and is what they attempted to do when we met to discuss the situation.
The contractor was told to leave my property after disclosing that he (and his associates) entered onto my property, without my permission and my being present, and inspected the damaged awning.
The first statement the contractor made during our meeting was that he looked at my awning and it was filled with dents, which is an outright lie (again, this seems to be how they do business). The only damages on the awning were caused during the re-roofing operation. It is clear, and noticeable - there is no oxidation on any of the dents/markings created by debris falling from the roof. The awning needs to be cleaned, but it is in excellent condition - other than the damages that were caused during the re-roofing work.
The contractor is correct in stating they covered the awning, but apparently the covering was not adequate, and the damages occurred.The contractors statement that the damages were pre-existing are another lie, and demonstrate the manner in which the business conducts itself - disreputably.
The Exteriors of CT LLC offered $100.00 for an awning that is valued at approximately $600.00 and cannot be repaired (I had two reputable awning dealers inspect the awning, and provide quotes to repair/replace the unit - The Awning Place, and Manchester Awnings).
I am asking that the contractor, Exteriors of CT LLC, conduct their business in a reputable manner, and do the right thing by covering the cost to replace the unit because of the damages they caused. I just purchased this condominium in April of 2016. It was thoroughly inspected, and nothing was damaged. Again, their statements to the contrary indicate the manner in which they conduct their business.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

I am in receipt and am not surprised that [redacted] does not acknowledge his screaming and swearing tirade when we met to try and resolve his complaint.Upon hearing of the complaint we examined the awning which is on association property and found existing damage on the awning which we have provided pictures of to you. Keep in mind we cover all the awnings and walls with plywood and tarps and do not open the awning prior to roofing the building.We are still not certain we did any damage. In an effort to be reasonable about this. We offered the unit owner $100.00 to help compensate for the awning.We think our offer was fair and reasonable.Please contact Di[redacted] management ([redacted] to verify the events and offer I have described.Please advise

I am in receipt and am not surprised that [redacted] does not acknowledge his screaming and swearing tirade when we met to try and resolve his complaint.
Upon hearing of the complaint we examined the awning which is on association property and found existing damage on the awning which we have provided pictures of to you. Keep in mind we cover all the awnings and walls with plywood and tarps and do not open the awning prior to roofing the building.
We are still not certain we did any damage. In an effort to be reasonable about this. We offered the unit owner $100.00 to help compensate for the awning.
We think our offer was fair and reasonable.
Please contact Di[redacted] management ([redacted] to verify the events and offer I have described.
Please advise

Co[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The contractor has misrepresented the entire situation. Connecticut Exteriors was notified of the damage through [redacted] Management, the condo association property manager. They requested a meeting at my residence which was unnecessary. Prior to that meeting, and by admission during that meeting, the contractor entered onto my property unlawfully, without permission,and stated they inspected the awning for damage. They admitted this at the start of the meeting we had and were asked to leave the property after they refused to acknowledge the damage they caused. 
 
I have had two awning dealers, Manchester Awning, and The Awning Place inspect the damages and provide quotes for replacement. Through the condo management company, I offered the contractor to arrange a replacement in their own and their solution is to simply ignore that the issue exists and they caused the damages. I have pictures of the damages and the damages the contractor caused are the only damages that exist on the awning.  The Awning Place stated the awning is in good condition and aluminum awnings such as this lastnwell over 30 years.
 
All I am asking the contractor to do is to do the right thing, and repair/replace the damages they caused instead of leaving an innocent homeowner stuck with the expense.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Co[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The contractor has misrepresented the entire situation. Connecticut Exteriors was notified of the damage through [redacted] Management, the condo association property manager. They requested a meeting at my residence which was unnecessary. Prior to that meeting, and by admission during that meeting, the contractor entered onto my property unlawfully, without permission,and stated they inspected the awning for damage. They admitted this at the start of the meeting we had and were asked to leave the property after they refused to acknowledge the damage they caused.  I have had two awning dealers, Manchester Awning, and The Awning Place inspect the damages and provide quotes for replacement. Through the condo management company, I offered the contractor to arrange a replacement in their own and their solution is to simply ignore that the issue exists and they caused the damages. I have pictures of the damages and the damages the contractor caused are the only damages that exist on the awning.  The Awning Place stated the awning is in good condition and aluminum awnings such as this lastnwell over 30 years. All I am asking the contractor to do is to do the right thing, and repair/replace the damages they caused instead of leaving an innocent homeowner stuck with the expense.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Exteriors of Connecticut performed 2 projects which included new windows and siding. Both projects turned out extremely well. We've had many local neighbors tell us how good our house looked after both projects. I would highly recommend this company.

On Friday December 10, 2016 I went to meet with [redacted] to discuss his concerns about the alleged damage to his awning at his Condo, along with my roofing foreman J[redacted], the property management company who contracted us to perform the reroofing work at...

Milestone 3 condos where Mr. [redacted] resides. The meeting was pre-arranged by Ms. [redacted] with Mr. [redacted] Mr. [redacted] pointed to the damage and I told him that the awning was 40 years old and that we had unrolled the awning to observe its condition and found many dents in it and so we were not sure if we had actually done any damage at all, as the awning was rolled up during the roofing work we did. Mr. [redacted] responded by screaming and swearing at us at the top of his lungs that we had no right to unroll his awning or be on his property. He screamed and swore at us for several minutes including slamming his door and throwing his phone. It was unbelievable that someone would go off on the three of us in that manner. We left feeling shocked that someone would try to resolve this issue by swearing and screaming at us at the top of their lungs. We left given no opportunity to discuss any resolution to his complaint. We are attaching photos of the awning to this complaint which illustrate pre-existing damage to the unrolled awning which could not have been caused by our roofing work as the awning was not unrolled at the time the work was performed.  Even if an inadvertent dent had occurred during our work which resulted in an additional cosmetic flaw, based on the age and condition of the awning, we believe that the full cost to replace the awning is unreasonable for us to assume. [redacted] was unwilling to discuss this matter with us at the meeting in a rational manner, the matter remains unresolved.