Heritage Construction Company

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I did not initially ask that the dish be removed the dish was on the ground when I inspected my proper [redacted] asked if I wanted it removed I had no Idea that Heritage would leave it hanging the way that they did Otherwise, I would have had them replace it on my roof I'm having difficulty believing that a professional would leave the cable wires they way they are in the attachments, and say that's a completed job Regards, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted] The response from Heritage Construction (company) has been rejected for a number of reasons some of which include inaccurate representation of the events that has taken place, denial of quality issues, denial of worker behavior problems while on the job, and refusal to discuss the requested actions that have been clearly presented in the original Revdex.com submissionBelow is a response to the company’s response submitted at approximately 6:PM on August 23rd It has been recognized that the company’s response was submitted a short time after a phone conversation held with a corporate representative between 4:PM and 5:PM the same dayPertaining to the first paragraph of the company’s response and the phone call: This may have been the first time the “corporate office” has heard of this complaint However, it is evident that I (the customer) have had multiple communications with field/sales representatives about each issue and some issues not mentioned in the original Revdex.com submittal due to brevity It is unclear why the company stated that the corporate office had not heard of this complaint before the Revdex.com submission, unless it was to admit the company has failing internal communications between the field/sales personnel and corporate office, and to acknowledge there has been an unknown (to corporate personnel) quality problem within their service/product at least dating back to February The company representative was correct in stating that there was no resolution agreed upon during the phone conversation This is partly because the company representative attempted to force the conversation to only discuss when the company could enter the premises to quickly fix the internal water damage This offering was without acknowledgement of the poor workmanship of previous work, unacceptable alcoholic drinking while on the job, and my valid concerns for the company’s inability to produce a quality product/service with any future work The corporate representative refused to acknowledge the requests that were presented in the original Revdex.com claim and attempted to steer the conversation toward a resolution that would only benefit the company considering the company’s interpretation of the claim and their exposure via the Revdex.com recordIt should be noted that during the phone conversation the company representative was “forcing” an offer to fix interior damages caused by leaks in the roof in what seemed to be a hasty manner It was also apparent that the company’s primary objective was to achieve a hasty agreement with minimal cost, no specificity, and work that could be executed with minimal time At no time during the conversation did the corporate representative show any acknowledgement for items brought forth or a real interest to provide a quality ensured resolution Due to the previous quality issues and the nature in which the so called “offer to fix” was presented, and with no opportunity to address the customer’s request to ensure quality through allowing other parties to inspect previous work and/or conduct future work to fix damages, I the customer have little to no confidence in the company’s ability to provide a professional service resulting in a reliable and quality product Because of this, I the customer also have little faith that any future warranty claims will be professionally addressed with a qualified resolution Because of all the events witnessed and behavior portrayed by the company to-date, it is reasonable to conclude that the likeliness of the company to produce a qualified resolution to this case and any future potential warranty problems is extremely lowIt was also claimed in the first paragraph the roof portion of the leak had been repaired However, there remains concern about the quality of the repair This concern is supported by past observations of quality issues and the fact that the roof was less than months old when the leak occurred This concern is also supported by the communications provided by the company’s manager responsible for handling the repair work At first, the manager failed to provide any report as to what the specific findings were once the worker executed a repair Once I, the customer, requested this information the manager stated that sealing was not complete and/or was faulty around the chimney, and there were exposed nails in the same area These types of issues should not, by any standard, be present on a recently installed roof In addition to the manager’s initial lack of providing findings of the failure, the worker that performed the repairs left a used caulking tube wedged between the roof and a vent pipe, which is easily visible from the ground The caulking tube remains on my roof today and is yet another example where cleanup is portrayed as a very low priority This occurrence further exemplifies the company’s lack of diligence toward providing a quality product with a professional serviceThe company’s corporate representative was correct in stating that I do not want the company to enter my property to do more work It should now be clear as to why I have concerns that the company does not have the ability to provide a quality product nor resolution to the damages now sustained to my home because of their poor quality and working behavior Allowing the company to enter my premises to conduct more work only exposes me to more quality problems and unprofessional worker behavior It should also be clearly understood that I am requesting a full inspection conducted by an un-biased third party to validate the company’s past work The company shall be responsible for any and all financial costs to inspect and fix any and all possible issues related to the company’s previous workPertaining to the second paragraph: It has been noted that the company appears to recognize a need for training and better internal communications to fix the underlying issues that helped facilitate the occurrences of poor quality and worker behavior However, this is only a first step and will require follow through This recognition does not actively support resolving the issue with my roof nor does it guarantee the company will actually act upon this statementPertaining to the background provided: A more accurate account of the installation time is February through February (a three-day installation) My original Revdex.com submission had an estimated date stated to show the installation occurred around the first of the year The corporate representative only stated February 16th as an installation date with no durationThe “walkthrough” was conducted because I reminded the salesman that it needed to be done, even though this was originally explained to me to be a standard task A time was scheduled to perform the walkthrough The salesman did not show up to the agreed upon time and did not provide a notice that he would not be showing When I contacted the salesman after he did not show, he then explained his schedule had changed but he was going to send another manager to collect payment instead I did not agree to this because it was not clear if anyone was going to actually perform a walkthrough There were also a substantial amount of nails remaining in the yard as though a magnet had not been used for nail cleanup The salesman later agreed to a different date to conduct the walkthrough and address the extensive amount of nails in the yard When the salesman did the final walkthrough I had to remind him to check the water heater vent pipes even though it was discussed previously The vent pipes were in fact disconnected This would have clearly been forgotten by the salesman and would have presented a carbon monoxide safety concern to my familyThe salesman also did not check any windows during the walkthrough The only items that the salesman appeared to be interested in was if any of the workers’ tools were left behind and if there were any major visible items on the premisesThe complete walkthrough took approximately minutes, of which was mostly consumed by reconnecting the water heater vent pipe It should be noted that the corporate representative claimed that a request to do the walkthrough was not maid The corporate representative’s statement is clearly and/or inaccurateThe cleanup of the jobsite was inaccurately presented by the company’s corporate representative Cleanup was actually conducted in three different sessions The first session was immediately after the major roofing job was completed and entailed removing only major piles of trash A company representative at this time made the claim that the cleanup effort had been completed However, there still remained large pieces of shingles, numerous amounts of nails, and large pieces of shingle wrappers throughout the yard In one instance a pile of nails was found in the middle of the back yard along with numerous nails loosely lying on top of the grass, sidewalk, and porches It was apparent that a magnet had not been used to sweep the premises per practice I also found a very large pink shingle wrapper foot up in one of the front yard trees This could be easily seen as one approached the house and was impossible to miss Pieces of shingles 2-inches in size were also found throughout the yard, hedges, and porches After these observations were communicated to the salesman he acknowledged the failure to cleanup and immediately had the cleanup crew return to complete the job Unfortunately, this second cleanup event only took care of the large pieces of trash and shingles The final and third cleanup session was because there were still a substantial amount of nails in the yard In the matter of less than a minute I was able to walk the premises and pick up more than a handful of nails loose on the ground as though a magnet still had not been swept over the yard After informing the salesman, again, he inquired with the cleanup crew and learned they did not have a magnet He then took it upon himself to purchase a magnet and sweep the yard The salesman found at least two handfuls worth of nails in about a minute sweep (I had already picked up a large portion of the nails myself and helped the salesman actually do the final nail sweep) The salesman openly apologized for the lack of quality by the cleanup crew and commented on the likeliness of it being connected to one or two individuals and the beer caps that were found earlier on the North side of the driveway I commended the salesman for doing what he was at least capable of at that time while also considering there were more serious underlying issues such as workers drinking on the job The salesman showed a genuine disgust once finding the beer caps and having to apologize for the complete lack of quality in the cleanupNote that the final walkthrough and the final nail cleanup were conducted the same evening by the salesmanNote that the bottle caps found were unmistakably beer caps, and were acknowledged as such by the salesman Furthermore, the salesman took pictures of the beer caps and nails that were in the yard to use for what I assumed would be used for some form of corrective actions The corporate representative has attempted to be misleading by suggesting the bottle caps could have not been beer caps This is a serious issue that not only relates to quality but also safety Based upon the company’s response, it appears as though the company has chosen to not take a responsible disposition to this matter even though it has already been recognized and documented by the salesmanCovering up rotten decking was another issue witnessed during the installation and was not conclusively nor accurately described by the corporate representative Once the old roof was removed I personally scanned the decking to confirm there was no water damage There were in fact two spots on the back of the house and one on the side I immediately communicated these findings to the salesman since there was not a manager on site The roofing crew also appeared to have no intentions of repairing these spots per standard practice The salesman ensured me that sheets of decking were included as part of every job and these spots would be fixed I checked on the repair progress of these spots a couple hours later but unfortunately observed the roofing crew had just laid the synthetic felt over the bad spots and were beginning to put down new shingles over these areas without performing any repairs I immediately contacted the salesman and asked why they had chosen to not fix the bad spots when it was included as part of the job and the new decking material was left lying in the front yardThe salesman had to physically come to the site to stop the workers, make a phone call to someone who could communicate with the workers, and finally force them to take up the felt and shingles to fix the rotten decking I also believe there was an issue where the crew did not have the appropriate tools (i.ecircular saw) to do the repair which may be why they elected to not do it at all I even offered to the salesman they could use my personal circular saw as long as they did the repair work that was supposed to be done This was the first occurrence that raised significant quality concerns Fortunately, I was engaged enough to ensure the rotten decking was fixed and not covered up If I was not there the crew would have simply covered the old decking and nobody but the crew members would have known about it The next issue dealt with a faulty paint job on the vent caps The initial paint job was apparently very thin and didn’t cover all the vent caps After a few days it became visibly clear (from the ground) that the vent caps had not been fully painted About the same time this was noticed, the salesman contacted me to collect the depreciation checkThe depreciation check was just released from my insurance company, at which time (March 3rd) I also informed the salesman that the vent caps had not be fully painted The salesman said he would contact the crew to have someone paint the vent caps On March I contacted the salesman again to ask when the vent caps would be painted because I had not been informed of any schedule to complete this task The salesman then made another call to the crew On March the vent caps were finally repaintedIt should be noted that the corporate representative stated that they did not hear from me again until June This is clearly not true as there were multiple communications during the month of March pertaining to the vent cap problem and collection of the depreciation checkThere was also the issue of double invoicing During the second week of March I was sent an invoice for the full amount of the job The company apparently had not recorded the large payment I had made at the completion of the initial job weeks earlier I confirmed the check had already cleared my bank and then informed the salesman of this issue The salesman said he would contact the office to see why they were sending me the full invoice weeks after I had already made a large payment I presume this was cleared up since I was not invoiced for the full amount againThe second time where the company attempted to double an invoice was when the salesman came to pick up the depreciation check At that time he claimed that I had not paid for the gutters added on to the front of the house I explained it was added on to a previous payment and retraced our previous conversations and documentsHe quickly agreed that the gutters had already been paid for Because of the attempts to double charge, I strongly requested to have an official signed receipt for the final payment The salesman (and company) was not prepared to produce an official receipt which caused some delay in the final payment It should also be noted that a time was scheduled and agreed to when the salesman could pick up the final check and also provide an official receipt The salesman did not show and did not provide any advanced communication that he would not be showing I again had to contact the salesman to see why he did not show, especially when he was very eager to get the final check He said his schedule changed and now needed to pick up the check the following day Between me and my wife we worked out a time where he could pick up the final check It should be noted that this was the second time the salesman did not show to an agreed upon time and did not call to cancel or reschedule It should also be noted that the corporate representative only mentioned a time when I had to be out of town and caused a schedule change, but never mentioned the multiple instances where the company either did not show up to the agreed upon meetings or had to reschedule meeting times due to their changing schedulesA contact attempt was made to the company salesman on June 29, once a leak was detected Another contact attempt was made on June 30, Note that the sales representative claimed I did not contact the company until June with regards to the leaking roof, which was not true The first contact attempt was the morning of June The salesman did respond on the morning of June The salesman explained that he had been moved to a different location and someone else would be contacting me within the next day to begin addressing the leak issue, and if they didn’t call to let him know By July 2nd I had not been contacted by the new salesman/manager I then contacted the previous salesman to inform him that nobody had contacted me The salesman then said he would have someone out by July 5, in which I requested to move it to the week of July 11, which he agreed was okay Nobody showed or contacted me during the week of July By July 17th I had not heard from anyone, so I again contacted the salesman and asked if I needed to be contacting someone else besides him to get the leak issue addressed The salesman said he would “make it happen this week” On July 19th the salesman asked if I had been contacted by the project manager, which I responded that I had not been contacted The salesman said he would find out what the problem was and have somebody contact me I finally received a call from the project manager that was supposed to be handling the leak issue On June 23rd a company representative came to my home and re-caulked the sealing around the chimney and sealed exposed nails in the adjacent area The project manager did not provide an explanation for what caused the leak I had to inquire with the project manager to learn what the actual issue was He explained that the caulking that was originally applied did not adequately seal the area nor were the exposed nails sealed Clearly this was a quality issue with the original installation At that time I called the project manager and explained I wanted somebody of a management status to execute a full inspection of the roof in case there were other quality issues I also gave him a brief history of the issues with the installation crew (i.edrinking, covering up rotten decking, lack of cleanup ) so that he had a better understanding of where my request was coming fromThe new project manager said he would come out to do the inspection A time was scheduled for July 25th The project manager did not show (note this is the third instance where a time was scheduled and nobody showed up and without any prior notification) I contacted the project manager to ask when he was going to be showing up and he explained that he had a family emergency He also explained that he would have a senior sales rep come by and do the inspection the next day at 6:PM On July 26th I was contacted by the senior sales rep at 6:PM (after the scheduled meeting time) asking if he could reschedule He explained he was not informed about the meeting until 5:PM and he was over an hour away at the time He also had a 7:PM meeting scheduled I told him I was not going to be put off anymore with missed meetings I also explained to him some of the history and he quickly concluded that my case was more important He finally arrived around 7:PM The senior sales rep did not actually inspect anything on the house He simply stayed for about 10-minutes and assured me that he would have somebody come and do a full inspection as soon as possible and he would be contacting me within the next 24-hours to rectify any and all issues I urged him to take a look at the first leak and another leak recently found in my front dining roomHe did not inspect these leaks but again assured me that he would be calling me within the next 24-hours I did not hear from the senior sales rep again until he called me on Aug 18th to explain he had been terminated from the company I commended him for following up and at least letting me know why he had not called despite his current situationI then called the original salesman (again) and explained that the roof and ceiling repair had not been completed He explained he was on vacation but that he would make sure that someone would call me within 24-hrs During this time I also discovered that one of my back windows has a small break that was not there prior to the roof installation After two days passed, I then entered the Revdex.com claim and have decided that the company, Heritage Construction, is simply not capable of providing a quality product/service and the current roof I have, which was installed by Heritage Construction, is most likely unreliable and the company does not have the capability to address warranty claims with a qualified response What is being requested: Firstly, an unbiased third party roofing inspector is to perform an impartial inspection of the quality of the roofing job Any and all costs for the inspection shall be paid for by Heritage Construction All findings may then be fixed by Heritage Construction but shall be confirmed by the inspector to be adequate quality This may include replacement of the entire roof if deemed necessary by the inspectorSecondly, a third party contractor shall complete any and all repairs to ceiling and wall damages due to water leaks All new paint and texturing implemented must perfectly match existing paint and texture All water damage repairs must be thoroughly protected against any mold/mildew growth If paint cannot be matched then the contiguous wall space and ceiling space starting at the leak damage must be re-textured and repainted Any questionable sheet rock must be replaced and drywall texturing matched or the contiguous wall space and ceiling space must have new texturing and paint Any walls that must be repainted shall be aligned with the color scheme of the adjoining walls of the room/spaceOtherwise the entire room/space must be painted to be consistent with an agreeable color schemeThirdly, a third party shall be hired to replace either the glass or entire window that has been broken Recall that the final walkthrough did not include window inspections and thus would not have detected the broken window Furthermore, the window break was not there during the original inspection conducted by my insurance agency and later by the company salesman during the quote process It was also observed that numerous pictures, wall hangings, and decor were moved during the installation due to the extreme amount of noise and vibration/impacts from the roofing work, which could have also stressed the window It has also been noted that both nails and large shingle pieces were found on both porches, which could have contributed to flying debris impacting the window Therefore, it is most likely the roofing work caused the broken window Heritage Construction shall be liable for replacing the glass in the window or the entire window whichever is determined appropriate by a third party window contractor An unbiased third party contractor will be required to execute this workFourthly, Heritage Construction shall provide an amendment to the existing warranty specifically stating it will cover any and all future issues with my roof and any related damages within a day time frame of discovery This amendment will also state that I have the option to choose a separate third party to conduct the work if Heritage Construction cannot respond within the day time frame and with a qualified resolution All work shall be inspected by an unbiased third party and can only be qualified by a professional inspector All costs for repairs, inspections, and indirect costs suffered by me, the customer, shall be burdened by Heritage Construction This amendment will only expire when home ownership changes Regards, [redacted] ***

Our sales manager called and left a message on Sunday for Ms***I also personally called Ms [redacted] and was unable to reach her to let her know the status of the team before turning it over to the sales managerI called again today and left a voicemail message for herOur sales manager will be calling her again this afternoon as I indicated on the voicemail left for Ms***Our warranty team has her information and will be making their way to her house as quickly as possible to fix her leak

We made repeated attempts to rectify this situation with the customerThe issue began because the customer selected a shingle color which does not have a high profile hip and ridge shingle for the ridge cap and is a special order shingle color and a very unusual color for the areaThe sales team member was unfortunately not as familiar with the product line due to the rare nature of the customer selected color and as soon as they were made aware that the high profile hip and ridge was unavailable for the shingle, they spoke with the customer, let them know that amount would be discounted from the entire contract and the customer understood and acceptedFrom there, there have been multiple issuesHeritage Construction has had numerous back and forth emails with the client discounting multiple items they decided not to have completed on their contractIn addition several discounts were added to the contract for the inconveniences the customer experienced throughout the processThe customer agreed to the final balance and made reference several times that after receiving certain pieces of information (warranty information, discounts, etc.) that they would put their final check in the mail, we would provide that information and then they would want something elseThe contract has already been discounted by several thousand dollars and this is the final balance due for the customer after all discounts were givenWe have provided everything that has been asked of our companyWarranty begins at the full payment of contract as is stated in the contract detailsWe have responded in a timely manner and have worked with this customer through every question that they have had and provided a discount for items that they were unhappy withThey have promised payment in writing and have not followed throughAfter providing approximately $2,in discounts, we will not provide any additional amounts

Heritage Construction has reviewed the roof at this property and we have found the only issue was a leak that has since been repaired as of 7/26/per the lifetime workmanship warranty that is in existence for this propertyWe are waiting to repair the interior work and will do so upon receiving permission from the homeownerThe homeowner is welcome to hire a third-party to review the roof at their expenseIn the event that the third-party inspection reveals any repair issues, Heritage Construction will review the inspection report and repair any necessary items and reimburse the homeowner for the cost of the third-party inspectionIn the event that the inspection does not result in any findings, Heritage will repair the interior area per the workmanship warranty and will not reimburse the homeowner for the cost of the 3rd party inspectionThe lifetime workmanship warranty will remain in effect for the life of the roof per our standard agreement

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: No one has attempted to contact meI received no voice mail messageAgain, my telephone contact is [redacted] Regards, [redacted] ***

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The information presented is not accurateFirst and foremost, the contractor has not completed the terms of our contract with several items unfinishedThis information was sent to the contractor on March 5, I asked the contractor to remove the items he didn't complete on the insurance paperwork and he refusedThis appears to be fraudulentSecondly, the contractor knew the roof he was installing was not what we agreed and he installed anyway, forcing me to negotiate with a partially completed roofLastly, we don't agree, but the facts can't be disputed and I want to make potential customers aware of this company's practices and my experience Regards, [redacted]

Heritage has a signed contract with the client for a roofThe dispute is regarding an original patio estimate given to the client last yearThe patio estimate was not ever signed or accepted by the clientEstimates are only good for a day period due to changing material costs and labor costs Material and labor costs have changed significantly due to a significant cost in building materials as well as labor costs due to the impact of the hurricanes seen across the U.Sthe latter part of last yearThe client has been unable to produce a signed contract or estimate with any detail, when giving the specs for the patio that he wanted, the representative shared with him what the current pricing would be based on what the customer was wanting to buildThe customer was unhappy with that amount and then became unhappy with the roofing processThe representative that has been working with this customer has attempted to reach out to offer a patio that would fit within the customers $budget but at the time of this posting a solution has yet to be reachedWe will continue to work with the customer in an attempt to find an amicable solution There have been no deceptive practicesAs it states specifically on the Heritage Construction Contract, Heritage and its representatives do not make verbal agreementsAll contracts must be made in writingThere is not a signed contract regarding the patioThere is only a signed contract for the roofing portion of the project for which we are awaiting payment

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Ice and water shield should have been used on the whole roof and chimney was not fixed as promised. Proof of warranty was not given as promised
Regards,
*** ***

Complaint: ***
Heritage Construction's response is rejected because it does not meet the requirements stated in the previous request. Also, there is now a third leak that has been found and appears to be from a faulty seal around the furnace vent. This is yet another example of poor quality from the initial roofing jobThe requests put forth in the prior response are not negotiable

Our sales manager called and left a message on Sunday for Ms. [redacted]. I also personally called Ms. [redacted] and was unable to reach her to let her know the status of the team before turning it over to the sales manager. I called again today and left a voicemail message for her. Our sales manager will be calling her again this afternoon as I indicated on the voicemail left for Ms. [redacted]. Our warranty team has her information and will be making their way to her house as quickly as possible to fix her leak.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Before they started working on roof, it was a clear note and agreement from both sides that roofing work is given because of patio work for 2800. They deceived me by giving me this contract and also send their representative on the day of the roof that next day they will do patio work. They confirmed me on Dec 11th and 13th the cost of the roof is 2800. I asked them to start the patio work , to that they replied that they do not have labor yet. His representative told me that I do not need to pay the balance of the roof until patio is done. Then he ran away and  never showered up. Later Heritage rejected all the communications and refused to work for 2800. They changed the price 3 times after that from 2800 to 3800 to 5000 for the same work and threatened in person at my home  to make payment. Cpy of my written email for roof work that was contingent to the patio work at $2800----- Forwarded Message -----From: [redacted] <[redacted]@yahoo.com>To: Heritage Construction <a[redacted]@[redacted].com>; [redacted] <[redacted].com>Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017, 1:56:58 PM CSTSubject: Re: Heritage Construction Contract - Please review and sign Hi [redacted], I have signed this contract subject to our agreement for outdoor patio construction. Please send em the contract for patio also so that we can start the work asap. Please also give me the contract / quote and details for putting the sunroof in my office room.  AS you start the work, please do take the following precautions that we discussed during your visit1. Cover the pool so that nails do not go in the pool2. Cover & clean the backyard and around the house for nails and any other debris3. Careful of gas line under the roof. There is no new line done. This was done when house was constructed.  ThanksPankaj[redacted]-[redacted]-[redacted] COPY of Heritage email for reconfirming or deceiving us on Dec 11ith  From: [redacted] <[redacted].com>To: [redacted] <[redacted]@yahoo.com>Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017, 4:08:39 PM CSTSubject: Re: Heritage Estimate [redacted] 75028 Hi PKOur contract for the roof is 12k. That amount does not change, neither does the contract for $2800 for the extended patio. That puts my total at $14,800. Your insurance is holding back 4K until the work is completed. Insurance is paying out roughly $14,400 including the depreciation. On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:55 PM [redacted] <[redacted]@yahoo.com> wrote:Hi [redacted], this is for $2800 how do we confirm that we are signing up $250 after discounts .. I know that this is not independent and it is based on other contract work ..  
Regards,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
No one has attempted to contact me. I received no voice mail message. Again, my telephone contact is [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Their team is working with me to close this project. Once the project is closed and financials are settled, I will provide the update. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Unfortunately, the representative that Ms. [redacted] originally worked with has moved on to a position with another company and we were unaware of her initial attempts to contact that our former team member. Heritage received a message from Ms. [redacted] on Wednesday, 8/30/2017 at 6:29am via our answering...

service. This is the first message we received from Ms. [redacted] and the only message received. It was immediately sent to our San Antonio team. Those team members were temporarily dispatched to our Corpus Christi branch in order to help with emergency tarping and emergency repairs after the hurricane, upon returning to the area on Sunday our San Antonio manager called immediately and left a message for Ms. [redacted] regarding the leak to see when a crew could come to her home. We sincerely apologize for the delayed response, as we are typically very prompt in returning phone calls.

Unfortunately, this is the first time that the corporate office of Heritage Construction is hearing of this complaint and we have reached out directly to the homeowner to address the issues. The conversation with the homeowner was without resolution as we have offered to fix the interior damage and...

the leak in their roof has already been repaired and the homeowner does not want us to repair the interior damage at this time.  All contact has been made with their original representative who did not alert their manager nor corporate team and additional training has been provided to ensure that problems such as these are escalated more quickly so customers receive adequate attention in a timely fashion. Background: Heritage installed this roof on February 16, 2016. Upon completion of the roof, the sales representative did a final walk-through and came to collect the first check. At that time the homeowner expressed that he was unhappy that there were pieces of trash in the grass along with expressing concern over the crews general clean up of the job site. At that time, the sales representative used a magnet to again sweep the complete job site for nails while also picking up any remaining trash items. At that time, the representative did mention finding several bottle caps while sweeping the yard but was unsure whether it was for beer bottles or for non-alcoholic beverage bottles. It should be noted that the crew roofing this roof is a year-round roofing crews and no other complaints have been made regarding this crew. After cleaning up, the sales team member received the first check and returned to the customers home again approximately 3-4 weeks later to collect the final depreciation check and no other complaints were made regarding any other items as are mentioned in the complaint. To address some other items mentioned 1.     Covering rotten decking – 3 pieces of plywood were replaced at the customers home at no cost to the customer per our standard policy and no additional rotten decking was found on the job. 2.     Vent caps are painted to match the roof and it appears that the paint did not hold well in several areas and the crew re-painted several of the vents 3.      As is discussed in the signed customer contract, vent connections may be affected by roofing and a Heritage representative is available to inspect these connections, a request for inspection was not made and this complaint is the first knowledge that we have of any issues being had with the vent connection. We did not hear from the customer again until 6/30/2016 in which they mentioned a potential leak at their home directly to their salesman. When they were followed up with, the homeowner said that they would be out of town and asked us to reschedule our planned date of 7/5/16 for repair. On 7/17/2016 contact was made with the customer to discuss another potential repair date, the customer had initially wanted to be home during the repair. The crew was able to do the repair on 7/26/16, which was an issue with the sealant around the chimney. The crew was able to reseal the area. The customer was notified that we wanted to be sure the leak was sealed prior to fixing the interior area and to please call us at the next rain to be sure that no additional leaks were found. At this time, no additional issues were found with the roof and the crew sealed the leak.  We are waiting on homeowner approval to return and fix the interior damage. At this time, the homeowner has said that they do not want us to return and they are weighing their options. We stand by our work and there are no other issues with the roof. Once we receive approval from the homeowner, we will return and fix the interior damage per our warranty. We apologize for the inconveniences that the homeowner experienced during the process, several of these complaints have not been brought forward until now and are items that we would have been happy to address for the homeowner had they been brought to our attention, there is a lifetime workmanship warranty that protects the roof against leaks for the life of the roof and we are happy to take care of any leak and the interior damage as soon as we receive the approval to do so.

Our team is currently working with this customer to build a patio to his specifications and budget. Our project managers have worked extensively with this customer and are working to ensure satisfaction regarding the job that has taken place at his home as we do with every job that we complete. Once we have completed the job we will ask that the customer follow up regarding this matter.

Heritage Construction has reviewed the roof at this property and we have found the only issue was a leak that has since been repaired as of 7/26/2016 per the lifetime workmanship warranty that is in existence for this property. We are waiting to repair the interior work and will do so upon receiving permission from the homeowner. The homeowner is welcome to hire a third-party to review the roof at their expense. In the event that the third-party inspection reveals any repair issues, Heritage Construction will review the inspection report and repair any necessary items  and reimburse the homeowner for the cost of the third-party inspection. In the event that the inspection does not result in any findings, Heritage will repair the interior area per the workmanship warranty and will not reimburse the homeowner for the cost of the 3rd party inspection. The lifetime workmanship warranty will remain in effect for the life of the roof per our standard agreement.

Complaint: [redacted]
The response from Heritage Construction (company) has been rejected for a number of reasons some of which include inaccurate representation of the events that has taken place, denial of quality issues, denial of worker behavior problems while on the job, and refusal to discuss the requested actions that have been clearly presented in the original Revdex.com submission. Below is a response to the company’s response submitted at approximately 6:00 PM on August 23rd.  It has been recognized that the company’s response was submitted a short time after a phone conversation held with a corporate representative between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM the same day. Pertaining to the first paragraph of the company’s response and the phone call: This may have been the first time the “corporate office” has heard of this complaint.  However, it is evident that I (the customer) have had multiple communications with field/sales representatives about each issue and some issues not mentioned in the original Revdex.com submittal due to brevity.  It is unclear why the company stated that the corporate office had not heard of this complaint before the Revdex.com submission, unless it was to admit the company has failing internal communications between the field/sales personnel and corporate office, and to acknowledge there has been an unknown (to corporate personnel) quality problem within their service/product at least dating back to February 2016. The company representative was correct in stating that there was no resolution agreed upon during the phone conversation.  This is partly because the company representative attempted to force the conversation to only discuss when the company could enter the premises to quickly fix the internal water damage.  This offering was without acknowledgement of the poor workmanship of previous work, unacceptable alcoholic drinking while on the job, and my valid concerns for the company’s inability to produce a quality product/service with any future work.  The corporate representative refused to acknowledge the requests that were presented in the original Revdex.com claim and attempted to steer the conversation toward a resolution that would only benefit the company considering the company’s interpretation of the claim and their exposure via the Revdex.com record. It should be noted that during the phone conversation the company representative was “forcing” an offer to fix interior damages caused by leaks in the roof in what seemed to be a hasty manner.  It was also apparent that the company’s primary objective was to achieve a hasty agreement with minimal cost, no specificity, and work that could be executed with minimal time.  At no time during the conversation did the corporate representative show any acknowledgement for items brought forth or a real interest to provide a quality ensured resolution.  Due to the previous quality issues and the nature in which the so called “offer to fix” was presented, and with no opportunity to address the customer’s request to ensure quality through allowing other parties to inspect previous work and/or conduct future work to fix damages, I the customer have little to no confidence in the company’s ability to provide a professional service resulting in a reliable and quality product.  Because of this, I the customer also have little faith that any future warranty claims will be professionally addressed with a qualified resolution.  Because of all the events witnessed and behavior portrayed by the company to-date, it is reasonable to conclude that the likeliness of the company to produce a qualified resolution to this case and any future potential warranty problems is extremely low. It was also claimed in the first paragraph the roof portion of the leak had been repaired.  However, there remains concern about the quality of the repair.  This concern is supported by past observations of quality issues and the fact that the roof was less than 6 months old when the leak occurred.  This concern is also supported by the communications provided by the company’s manager responsible for handling the repair work.  At first, the manager failed to provide any report as to what the specific findings were once the worker executed a repair.  Once I, the customer, requested this information the manager stated that sealing was not complete and/or was faulty around the chimney, and there were exposed nails in the same area.  These types of issues should not, by any standard, be present on a recently installed roof.  In addition to the manager’s initial lack of providing findings of the failure, the worker that performed the repairs left a used caulking tube wedged between the roof and a vent pipe, which is easily visible from the ground.  The caulking tube remains on my roof today and is yet another example where cleanup is portrayed as a very low priority.  This occurrence further exemplifies the company’s lack of diligence toward providing a quality product with a professional service. The company’s corporate representative was correct in stating that I do not want the company to enter my property to do more work.  It should now be clear as to why I have concerns that the company does not have the ability to provide a quality product nor resolution to the damages now sustained to my home because of their poor quality and working behavior.  Allowing the company to enter my premises to conduct more work only exposes me to more quality problems and unprofessional worker behavior.  It should also be clearly understood that I am requesting a full inspection conducted by an un-biased third party to validate the company’s past work.  The company shall be responsible for any and all financial costs to inspect and fix any and all possible issues related to the company’s previous work. Pertaining to the second paragraph: It has been noted that the company appears to recognize a need for training and better internal communications to fix the underlying issues that helped facilitate the occurrences of poor quality and worker behavior.  However, this is only a first step and will require follow through.  This recognition does not actively support resolving the issue with my roof nor does it guarantee the company will actually act upon this statement. Pertaining to the background provided: A more accurate account of the installation time is February 16 through February 18 (a three-day installation).  My original Revdex.com submission had an estimated date stated to show the installation occurred around the first of the year.  The corporate representative only stated February 16th as an installation date with no duration. The “walkthrough” was conducted because I reminded the salesman that it needed to be done, even though this was originally explained to me to be a standard task.  A time was scheduled to perform the walkthrough.  The salesman did not show up to the agreed upon time and did not provide a notice that he would not be showing.  When I contacted the salesman after he did not show, he then explained his schedule had changed but he was going to send another manager to collect payment instead.  I did not agree to this because it was not clear if anyone was going to actually perform a walkthrough.  There were also a substantial amount of nails remaining in the yard as though a magnet had not been used for nail cleanup.  The salesman later agreed to a different date to conduct the walkthrough and address the extensive amount of nails in the yard.  When the salesman did the final walkthrough I had to remind him to check the water heater vent pipes even though it was discussed previously.  The vent pipes were in fact disconnected.  This would have clearly been forgotten by the salesman and would have presented a carbon monoxide safety concern to my family. The salesman also did not check any windows during the walkthrough.  The only items that the salesman appeared to be interested in was if any of the workers’ tools were left behind and if there were any major visible items on the premises. The complete walkthrough took approximately 10 minutes, of which was mostly consumed by reconnecting the water heater vent pipe.  It should be noted that the corporate representative claimed that a request to do the walkthrough was not maid.  The corporate representative’s statement is clearly false and/or inaccurate. The cleanup of the jobsite was inaccurately presented by the company’s corporate representative.  Cleanup was actually conducted in three different sessions.  The first session was immediately after the major roofing job was completed and entailed removing only major piles of trash.  A company representative at this time made the claim that the cleanup effort had been completed.  However, there still remained large pieces of shingles, numerous amounts of nails, and large pieces of shingle wrappers throughout the yard.  In one instance a pile of nails was found in the middle of the back yard along with numerous nails loosely lying on top of the grass, sidewalk, and porches.  It was apparent that a magnet had not been used to sweep the premises per normal practice.  I also found a very large pink shingle wrapper 10 foot up in one of the front yard trees.  This could be easily seen as one approached the house and was impossible to miss.  Pieces of shingles 2-6 inches in size were also found throughout the yard, hedges, and porches.  After these observations were communicated to the salesman he acknowledged the failure to cleanup and immediately had the cleanup crew return to complete the job.  Unfortunately, this second cleanup event only took care of the large pieces of trash and shingles.  The final and third cleanup session was because there were still a substantial amount of nails in the yard.  In the matter of less than a minute I was able to walk the premises and pick up more than a handful of nails loose on the ground as though a magnet still had not been swept over the yard.  After informing the salesman, again, he inquired with the cleanup crew and learned they did not have a magnet.  He then took it upon himself to purchase a magnet and sweep the yard.  The salesman found at least two handfuls worth of nails in about a 30 minute sweep (I had already picked up a large portion of the nails myself and helped the salesman actually do the final nail sweep).  The salesman openly apologized for the lack of quality by the cleanup crew and commented on the likeliness of it being connected to one or two individuals and the beer caps that were found earlier on the North side of the driveway.  I commended the salesman for doing what he was at least capable of at that time while also considering there were more serious underlying issues such as workers drinking on the job.  The salesman showed a genuine disgust once finding the beer caps and having to apologize for the complete lack of quality in the cleanup. Note that the final walkthrough and the final nail cleanup were conducted the same evening by the salesman. Note that the bottle caps found were unmistakably beer caps, and were acknowledged as such by the salesman.  Furthermore, the salesman took pictures of the beer caps and nails that were in the yard to use for what I assumed would be used for some form of corrective actions.  The corporate representative has attempted to be misleading by suggesting the bottle caps could have not been beer caps.  This is a serious issue that not only relates to quality but also safety.  Based upon the company’s response, it appears as though the company has chosen to not take a responsible disposition to this matter even though it has already been recognized and documented by the salesman. Covering up rotten decking was another issue witnessed during the installation and was not conclusively nor accurately described by the corporate representative.  Once the old roof was removed I personally scanned the decking to confirm there was no water damage.  There were in fact two spots on the back of the house and one on the side.  I immediately communicated these findings to the salesman since there was not a manager on site.  The roofing crew also appeared to have no intentions of repairing these spots per standard practice.  The salesman ensured me that 3 sheets of decking were included as part of every job and these spots would be fixed.  I checked on the repair progress of these spots a couple hours later but unfortunately observed the roofing crew had just laid the synthetic felt over the bad spots and were beginning to put down new shingles over these areas without performing any repairs.  I immediately contacted the salesman and asked why they had chosen to not fix the bad spots when it was included as part of the job and the new decking material was left lying in the front yard. The salesman had to physically come to the site to stop the workers, make a phone call to someone who could communicate with the workers, and finally force them to take up the felt and shingles to fix the rotten decking.  I also believe there was an issue where the crew did not have the appropriate tools (i.e. circular saw) to do the repair which may be why they elected to not do it at all.  I even offered to the salesman they could use my personal circular saw as long as they did the repair work that was supposed to be done.  This was the first occurrence that raised significant quality concerns.  Fortunately, I was engaged enough to ensure the rotten decking was fixed and not covered up.   If I was not there the crew would have simply covered the old decking and nobody but the crew members would have known about it.  The next issue dealt with a faulty paint job on the vent caps.  The initial paint job was apparently very thin and didn’t cover all the vent caps.  After a few days it became visibly clear (from the ground) that the vent caps had not been fully painted.  About the same time this was noticed, the salesman contacted me to collect the depreciation check. The depreciation check was just released from my insurance company, at which time (March 3rd) I also informed the salesman that the vent caps had not be fully painted.  The salesman said he would contact the crew to have someone paint the vent caps.  On March 9 I contacted the salesman again to ask when the vent caps would be painted because I had not been informed of any schedule to complete this task.  The salesman then made another call to the crew.  On March 12 the vent caps were finally repainted. It should be noted that the corporate representative stated that they did not hear from me again until June 30.  This is clearly not true as there were multiple communications during the month of March pertaining to the vent cap problem and collection of the depreciation check. There was also the issue of double invoicing.  During the second week of March I was sent an invoice for the full amount of the job.  The company apparently had not recorded the large payment I had made at the completion of the initial job weeks earlier.  I confirmed the check had already cleared my bank and then informed the salesman of this issue.  The salesman said he would contact the office to see why they were sending me the full invoice weeks after I had already made a large payment.  I presume this was cleared up since I was not invoiced for the full amount again. The second time where the company attempted to double an invoice was when the salesman came to pick up the depreciation check.  At that time he claimed that I had not paid for the gutters added on to the front of the house.  I explained it was added on to a previous payment and retraced our previous conversations and documents. He quickly agreed that the gutters had already been paid for.  Because of the attempts to double charge, I strongly requested to have an official signed receipt for the final payment.  The salesman (and company) was not prepared to produce an official receipt which caused some delay in the final payment.  It should also be noted that a time was scheduled and agreed to when the salesman could pick up the final check and also provide an official receipt.  The salesman did not show and did not provide any advanced communication that he would not be showing.  I again had to contact the salesman to see why he did not show, especially when he was very eager to get the final check.  He said his schedule changed and now needed to pick up the check the following day.  Between me and my wife we worked out a time where he could pick up the final check.  It should be noted that this was the second time the salesman did not show to an agreed upon time and did not call to cancel or reschedule.  It should also be noted that the corporate representative only mentioned a time when I had to be out of town and caused a schedule change, but never mentioned the multiple instances where the company either did not show up to the agreed upon meetings or had to reschedule meeting times due to their changing schedules. A contact attempt was made to the company salesman on June 29, 2016 once a leak was detected.  Another contact attempt was made on June 30, 2016.  Note that the sales representative claimed I did not contact the company until June 30 with regards to the leaking roof, which was not true.  The first contact attempt was the morning of June 29.  The salesman did respond on the morning of June 30.  The salesman explained that he had been moved to a different location and someone else would be contacting me within the next day to begin addressing the leak issue, and if they didn’t call to let him know.  By July 2nd I had not been contacted by the new salesman/manager.  I then contacted the previous salesman to inform him that nobody had contacted me.  The salesman then said he would have someone out by July 5, in which I requested to move it to the week of July 11, which he agreed was okay.  Nobody showed or contacted me during the week of July 11.  By July 17th I had not heard from anyone, so I again contacted the salesman and asked if I needed to be contacting someone else besides him to get the leak issue addressed.  The salesman said he would “make it happen this week”.  On July 19th the salesman asked if I had been contacted by the project manager, which I responded that I had not been contacted.  The salesman said he would find out what the problem was and have somebody contact me.  I finally received a call from the project manager that was supposed to be handling the leak issue.  On June 23rd a company representative came to my home and re-caulked the sealing around the chimney and sealed exposed nails in the adjacent area.  The project manager did not provide an explanation for what caused the leak.  I had to inquire with the project manager to learn what the actual issue was.  He explained that the caulking that was originally applied did not adequately seal the area nor were the exposed nails sealed.  Clearly this was a quality issue with the original installation.  At that time I called the project manager and explained I wanted somebody of a management status to execute a full inspection of the roof in case there were other quality issues.  I also gave him a brief history of the issues with the installation crew (i.e. drinking, covering up rotten decking, lack of cleanup…) so that he had a better understanding of where my request was coming from. The new project manager said he would come out to do the inspection.  A time was scheduled for July 25th.  The project manager did not show (note this is the third instance where a time was scheduled and nobody showed up and without any prior notification).  I contacted the project manager to ask when he was going to be showing up and he explained that he had a family emergency.  He also explained that he would have a senior sales rep come by and do the inspection the next day at 6:00 PM.  On July 26th I was contacted by the senior sales rep at 6:36 PM (after the scheduled meeting time) asking if he could reschedule.  He explained he was not informed about the meeting until 5:00 PM and he was over an hour away at the time.  He also had a 7:00 PM meeting scheduled.  I told him I was not going to be put off anymore with missed meetings.  I also explained to him some of the history and he quickly concluded that my case was more important.  He finally arrived around 7:30 PM.  The senior sales rep did not actually inspect anything on the house.  He simply stayed for about 10-15 minutes and assured me that he would have somebody come and do a full inspection as soon as possible and he would be contacting me within the next 24-48 hours to rectify any and all issues.  I urged him to take a look at the first leak and another leak recently found in my front dining room. He did not inspect these leaks but again assured me that he would be calling me within the next 24-48 hours.  I did not hear from the senior sales rep again until he called me on Aug 18th to explain he had been terminated from the company.  I commended him for following up and at least letting me know why he had not called despite his current situation. I then called the original salesman (again) and explained that the roof and ceiling repair had not been completed.  He explained he was on vacation but that he would make sure that someone would call me within 24-48 hrs.  During this time I also discovered that one of my back windows has a small break that was not there prior to the roof installation.  After two days passed, I then entered the Revdex.com claim and have decided that the company, Heritage Construction, is simply not capable of providing a quality product/service and the current roof I have, which was installed by Heritage Construction, is most likely unreliable and the company does not have the capability to address warranty claims with a qualified response.   What is being requested: Firstly, an unbiased third party roofing inspector is to perform an impartial inspection of the quality of the roofing job.  Any and all costs for the inspection shall be paid for by Heritage Construction.  All findings may then be fixed by Heritage Construction but shall be confirmed by the inspector to be adequate quality.  This may include replacement of the entire roof if deemed necessary by the inspector. Secondly, a third party contractor shall complete any and all repairs to ceiling and wall damages due to water leaks.  All new paint and texturing implemented must perfectly match existing paint and texture.  All water damage repairs must be thoroughly protected against any mold/mildew growth.  If paint cannot be matched then the contiguous wall space and ceiling space starting at the leak damage must be re-textured and repainted.  Any questionable sheet rock must be replaced and drywall texturing matched or the contiguous wall space and ceiling space must have new texturing and paint.  Any walls that must be repainted shall be aligned with the color scheme of the adjoining walls of the room/space. Otherwise the entire room/space must be painted to be consistent with an agreeable color scheme. Thirdly, a third party shall be hired to replace either the glass or entire window that has been broken.  Recall that the final walkthrough did not include window inspections and thus would not have detected the broken window.  Furthermore, the window break was not there during the original inspection conducted by my insurance agency and later by the company salesman during the quote process.  It was also observed that numerous pictures, wall hangings, and decor were moved during the installation due to the extreme amount of noise and vibration/impacts from the roofing work, which could have also stressed the window.  It has also been noted that both nails and large shingle pieces were found on both porches, which could have contributed to flying debris impacting the window.  Therefore, it is most likely the roofing work caused the broken window.  Heritage Construction shall be liable for replacing the glass in the window or the entire window whichever is determined appropriate by a third party window contractor.  An unbiased third party contractor will be required to execute this work. Fourthly, Heritage Construction shall provide an amendment to the existing warranty specifically stating it will cover any and all future issues with my roof and any related damages within a 60 day time frame of discovery.  This amendment will also state that I have the option to choose a separate third party to conduct the work if Heritage Construction cannot respond within the 60 day time frame and with a qualified resolution.  All work shall be inspected by an unbiased third party and can only be qualified by a professional inspector.  All costs for repairs, inspections, and indirect costs suffered by me, the customer, shall be burdened by Heritage Construction.  This amendment will only expire when home ownership changes.
Regards,
[redacted]