Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/05/13) */
Fw: Revdex.com
message
*** ***
Mon, May 12, at 3:PM
Reply-To: *** ***
To: "***@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
On Monday, May 12, XXXX X:XX PM,
*** *** wrote:
This is in response to complaints by Mrs.***, owner of property
On the exterior, torn screens are a result of wear and tear not during our work at the property
The chimney brick she is referring to that has dropped inside is also from wear and tear and brick that was previously deteriorating, prior to our work at the propertyThere was no brickwork or chimney work included in our scope of work or brought to our attention at the a time we were installing the new roof
If there is any exterior damage incurred during tear off, this is typically displayed by old shingles and black tar marksThere are no signs of this on the exteriorWe are not aware of having created any damage to the downspoutAs a courtesy, we would be willing to replace the downspout extension for her
The interior damage she is reporting is displayed in the pictures attached as wellThere are no signs of current water damageThere is obvious signs of old cracking pain't on the first floorThere are no water staying in the area of peeling paintFurthermore, this is only on the first floorThere is a full second story beneath the roof which shows no sign of any water damageOnly similar areas of old cracking and peeling paint
We have provided the homeowner with a warranty of roof workmanship which we will honorWe are not responsible for other items of wear and tear that require up keep by the homeowner that is not the result of any damage when we put the roof on nor is there any evidence there is leaking created by the new roof we installedThis roof was installed a year ago
Any other questions or complaints regarding this can be directed to me,
*** ***
XXX-XXX-XXXX
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2014/04/07) */
#94490638: [redacted]
1 message
[redacted] Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:35 PM
Reply-To: [redacted]
To: "[redacted]@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
Dear Ms....
Mendez,
Ms. [redacted] did not afford Gerhardt Roofing the opportunity to inspect or repair her roof prior to this complaint. Instead she told the service man that the work had already been done by someone else. She also claimed that damage was done to her roof because a nail gun was used on it.
Gerhardt roofing did not and has never used nail guns to install any type of roofing. Apparently work was done either before or after Gerhardt had ever worked on her property. Ms. [redacted] also dismissed the possibility of making an insurance claim due to wind and storm damage. Even though Ms. [redacted] had already had the work done that she felt she needed, we had offered to meet with her insurance company representative to try to help her recover that cost. She declined.
In any event Gerhardt roofing had nothing to do with any damage caused by a nail gun. Additionally, as stated above, Ms. [redacted] had work done on her roof before she ever contacted us about a problem. If she believed Gerhardt was responsible for damage caused to her roof, why didn't she call us back in the first place?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I hope this makes clear the true chain of events that transpired in this situation.
Sincerely,
[redacted], President
Gerhardt Roofing
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2014/04/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Well, I'm being called a liar, I do not appreciate a claim that I'm dishonest without proof of dishonesty.
I stand on my claim and submit documents that prove I followed Gerhardt Const., advice that my insurance should take care of it.
To be frank, after my insurance refused to cover the entire cost citing faulty installation. I would not have employed Gerhardt Const., to do the job.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2014/04/30) */
Fw: #94490638: [redacted]
2 messages
[redacted] Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Reply-To: [redacted]
To: "[redacted]@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
On Saturday, April 5, XXXX X:XX PM, [redacted] wrote:
Dear Ms. Mendez,
Ms. [redacted] did not afford Gerhardt Roofing the opportunity to inspect or repair her roof prior to this complaint. Instead she told the service man that the work had already been done by someone else. She also claimed that damage was done to her roof because a nail gun was used on it.
Gerhardt roofing did not and has never used nail guns to install any type of roofing. Apparently work was done either before or after Gerhardt had ever worked on her property. Ms. [redacted] also dismissed the possibility of making an insurance claim due to wind and storm damage. Even though Ms. [redacted] had already had the work done that she felt she needed, we had offered to meet with her insurance company representative to try to help her recover that cost. She declined.
In any event Gerhardt roofing had nothing to do with any damage caused by a nail gun. Additionally, as stated above, Ms. [redacted] had work done on her roof before she ever contacted us about a problem. If she believed Gerhardt was responsible for damage caused to her roof, why didn't she call us back in the first place?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I hope this makes clear the true chain of events that transpired in this situation.
Sincerely,
[redacted], President
Gerhardt Roofing
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/03/25) */
Gerhardt Construction did not install the gutters, we were hired to adjust the gutters where they did not fit properly against the building. We did come out for a service call last year to make further adjustments. We are planning to...
make any other necessary adjustments as soon as weather permits, most likely this week until the customer is satisfied.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2014/03/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Gerhardt replaced my roof without removing the gutters and after that they were askew. I paid them to remove and reinstall the existing gutters if they were salvageable. I quote the first two sentences of their proposal: "Remove existing gutter and drain pipe system-re-install same using new metal strap system- Replace any damaged or worn sections ." They did not remove the gutters and try to straighten them out. They really only attached a few new straps. The gutters are listing. The southeast corner leaks the most but so does the northeast corner. I can see the sun shine between the gutter and the building which can cause ice jams. I will attempt to send a photo of the contract but I will put one in the mail to you also.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2014/05/20) */
[redacted], [redacted] W. [redacted] St., Chicago, Il. XXXXX
1 message
[redacted] Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:28 PM
Reply-To: [redacted]
To: "[redacted]@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
Dear Ms. Mendez,
We have been out to Ms. [redacted]'s property twice to take care of her issues about two weeks ago. We have since heard nothing more from her and we believe everything was taken care of to her satisfaction.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Gerhardt Construction Co., Inc.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/07/08) */
The Revdex.com has been advised by Mr [redacted] that the matter has been resolved. Please confirm whether or not your complaint has been resolved
[redacted]
Assistant Manager-Home Services
Revdex.com-Chicago & Northern Illinois
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/05/13) */
Fw: Revdex.com
message
*** ***
Mon, May 12, at 3:PM
Reply-To: *** ***
To: "***@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
On Monday, May 12, XXXX X:XX PM,
*** *** wrote:
This is in response to complaints by Mrs.***, owner of property
On the exterior, torn screens are a result of wear and tear not during our work at the property
The chimney brick she is referring to that has dropped inside is also from wear and tear and brick that was previously deteriorating, prior to our work at the propertyThere was no brickwork or chimney work included in our scope of work or brought to our attention at the a time we were installing the new roof
If there is any exterior damage incurred during tear off, this is typically displayed by old shingles and black tar marksThere are no signs of this on the exteriorWe are not aware of having created any damage to the downspoutAs a courtesy, we would be willing to replace the downspout extension for her
The interior damage she is reporting is displayed in the pictures attached as wellThere are no signs of current water damageThere is obvious signs of old cracking pain't on the first floorThere are no water staying in the area of peeling paintFurthermore, this is only on the first floorThere is a full second story beneath the roof which shows no sign of any water damageOnly similar areas of old cracking and peeling paint
We have provided the homeowner with a warranty of roof workmanship which we will honorWe are not responsible for other items of wear and tear that require up keep by the homeowner that is not the result of any damage when we put the roof on nor is there any evidence there is leaking created by the new roof we installedThis roof was installed a year ago
Any other questions or complaints regarding this can be directed to me,
*** ***
XXX-XXX-XXXX
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2014/04/07) */
#94490638: [redacted]
1 message
[redacted] Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 5:35 PM
Reply-To: [redacted]
To: "[redacted]@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
Dear Ms....
Mendez,
Ms. [redacted] did not afford Gerhardt Roofing the opportunity to inspect or repair her roof prior to this complaint. Instead she told the service man that the work had already been done by someone else. She also claimed that damage was done to her roof because a nail gun was used on it.
Gerhardt roofing did not and has never used nail guns to install any type of roofing. Apparently work was done either before or after Gerhardt had ever worked on her property. Ms. [redacted] also dismissed the possibility of making an insurance claim due to wind and storm damage. Even though Ms. [redacted] had already had the work done that she felt she needed, we had offered to meet with her insurance company representative to try to help her recover that cost. She declined.
In any event Gerhardt roofing had nothing to do with any damage caused by a nail gun. Additionally, as stated above, Ms. [redacted] had work done on her roof before she ever contacted us about a problem. If she believed Gerhardt was responsible for damage caused to her roof, why didn't she call us back in the first place?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I hope this makes clear the true chain of events that transpired in this situation.
Sincerely,
[redacted], President
Gerhardt Roofing
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2014/04/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Well, I'm being called a liar, I do not appreciate a claim that I'm dishonest without proof of dishonesty.
I stand on my claim and submit documents that prove I followed Gerhardt Const., advice that my insurance should take care of it.
To be frank, after my insurance refused to cover the entire cost citing faulty installation. I would not have employed Gerhardt Const., to do the job.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2014/04/30) */
Fw: #94490638: [redacted]
2 messages
[redacted] Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Reply-To: [redacted]
To: "[redacted]@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
On Saturday, April 5, XXXX X:XX PM, [redacted] wrote:
Dear Ms. Mendez,
Ms. [redacted] did not afford Gerhardt Roofing the opportunity to inspect or repair her roof prior to this complaint. Instead she told the service man that the work had already been done by someone else. She also claimed that damage was done to her roof because a nail gun was used on it.
Gerhardt roofing did not and has never used nail guns to install any type of roofing. Apparently work was done either before or after Gerhardt had ever worked on her property. Ms. [redacted] also dismissed the possibility of making an insurance claim due to wind and storm damage. Even though Ms. [redacted] had already had the work done that she felt she needed, we had offered to meet with her insurance company representative to try to help her recover that cost. She declined.
In any event Gerhardt roofing had nothing to do with any damage caused by a nail gun. Additionally, as stated above, Ms. [redacted] had work done on her roof before she ever contacted us about a problem. If she believed Gerhardt was responsible for damage caused to her roof, why didn't she call us back in the first place?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I hope this makes clear the true chain of events that transpired in this situation.
Sincerely,
[redacted], President
Gerhardt Roofing
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/03/25) */
Gerhardt Construction did not install the gutters, we were hired to adjust the gutters where they did not fit properly against the building. We did come out for a service call last year to make further adjustments. We are planning to...
make any other necessary adjustments as soon as weather permits, most likely this week until the customer is satisfied.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2014/03/31) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Gerhardt replaced my roof without removing the gutters and after that they were askew. I paid them to remove and reinstall the existing gutters if they were salvageable. I quote the first two sentences of their proposal: "Remove existing gutter and drain pipe system-re-install same using new metal strap system- Replace any damaged or worn sections ." They did not remove the gutters and try to straighten them out. They really only attached a few new straps. The gutters are listing. The southeast corner leaks the most but so does the northeast corner. I can see the sun shine between the gutter and the building which can cause ice jams. I will attempt to send a photo of the contract but I will put one in the mail to you also.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2014/05/20) */
[redacted], [redacted] W. [redacted] St., Chicago, Il. XXXXX
1 message
[redacted] Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:28 PM
Reply-To: [redacted]
To: "[redacted]@chicago.Revdex.com.org"
Dear Ms. Mendez,
We have been out to Ms. [redacted]'s property twice to take care of her issues about two weeks ago. We have since heard nothing more from her and we believe everything was taken care of to her satisfaction.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Gerhardt Construction Co., Inc.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/07/08) */
The Revdex.com has been advised by Mr [redacted] that the matter has been resolved. Please confirm whether or not your complaint has been resolved
[redacted]
Assistant Manager-Home Services
Revdex.com-Chicago & Northern Illinois