First General Services of Denver, LLC

My complaint continues to be the same as in my initial emailFirst General Services response did nothing to address the fact that they are requesting payment for services that they did not provide and they are also not crediting us for the damages they created that we had to repairThe home is still currently not inhabitable due to mold remediation taking place as a result of a leak that occurred after they installed a new vent through the roof

We performed a range of scope at this home for a hail insurance claim (May storm).The gutter replacement was only a portion of the work performedThe whole gutter system was dented/damaged from the hail storm so it was covered to replace all of the gutters on the houseThere was only one small area (right, front elevation of the house) where the gutters had actually detached from the home because of the stormThis was due to the extent of rot in the joists of this area being unable to support the weightWhen removing the old gutters it was apparent that there was substantial wood rot on the connection points (ends of the roof joists) around the perimeter of the houseThis rot was brought to [redacted] 's attention She felt it should have been covered by the insurance claimWe explained rot was a long term issue and it was not caused by the May hail storm, however, we submitted her request of coverage along with pictures to her carrierHer carrier then sent one of their field adjusters out to assess the situationHe reported it was rot and therefore denied coverage stating that it not in fact caused by the hail storm in May [redacted] felt we "swayed" the carrier's decisionWe do not have that authorityIn the meantime, in a effort to mitigate further water damage the new gutters were temporarily installed as best as possible to the existing joists [redacted] was not charged for this installation.We have supplied [redacted] with a proposal to repair the rot so that the gutters can be reattached permanentlyShe has declined the proposal

Please see the signed contract dated 5.8.17, 5% Deposit check that was cashed, a 15,check that has never successfully cleared the bank and the final negotiated contract that was offered after a site visit on 9/28/with all parties involvedMyself, my Project Manager, my Production Coordinator, my sub-contractors, *** *** and the other contractor that she hired for the upstairs renovation work. We were in agreement at that time on what items FGS would credit. In a good faith effort to move past this project, I offered more credits than what were owed. When everyone left this meeting on 9/28/17, we were all in agreement. I produced a revised contract and sent it to here on 10/3/17. We removed at that time, all items she had issue with

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because what First General Services has written is untrueI can go into details but if it is true that they have already filed liens against our property I believe the Revdex.com is not the correct avenue to resolve this disputePlease
advise
Sincerely,
*** ***

My complaint continues to be the same as in my initial email. First General Services response did nothing to address the fact that they are requesting payment for services that they did not provide and they are also not crediting us for the damages they created that we had to repair. The home is still currently not inhabitable due to mold remediation taking place as a result of a leak that occurred after they installed a new vent through the roof.

We performed a range of scope at this home for a hail insurance claim (May 2017 storm).The gutter replacement was only a portion of the work performed. The whole gutter system was dented/damaged from the hail storm so it was covered to replace all of the gutters on the house. There was only one...

small area (right, front elevation of the house) where the gutters had actually detached from the home because of the storm. This was due to the extent of rot in the joists of this area being unable to support the weight. When removing the old gutters it was apparent that there was substantial wood rot on the connection points (ends of the roof joists) around the perimeter of the house. This rot was brought to [redacted]'s attention.  She felt it should have been covered by the insurance claim. We explained rot was a long term issue and it was not caused by the May 2017 hail storm, however, we submitted her request of coverage along with pictures to her carrier. Her carrier then sent one of their field adjusters out to assess the situation. He reported it was rot and therefore denied coverage stating that it not in fact caused by the hail storm in May 2017. [redacted] felt we "swayed" the carrier's decision. We do not have that authority. In the meantime, in a effort to mitigate further water damage the new gutters were temporarily installed as best as possible to the existing joists. [redacted] was not charged for this installation.We have supplied [redacted] with a proposal to repair the rot so that the gutters can be reattached permanently. She has declined the proposal.