The cool roof form was filled out when I opened the permit and the inspector had missed it, but then noticed it when I looked at the permit file with himThe roof has an energy star ratingThe fact that the homeowners dispute the use of stitch screws validates their desire to alter the contract as they were fully aware of the use of screws and after the install, decided that they wanted "cleated fasteners" insteadThe use of screws was explained and showed by picture, to the [redacted] s before a proposal was ever madeThe flashing was installed incorrectly because it was not pitched enough, causing pondingThat is why I was going to reinstall the "gambrel flashing" as stated"installation manual per county inspection requirements" is the "condensed technical reference", as the manufacturer does not publish an installation manual, as we are all awareAdditionally, though I did provide a work plan for Correction, I am not required to do so, as our contract is a stated work plan, that has been mutually agreed upon and is what is relevant to what is expectedAll of this is an attempt to make a change order, through coersion, by first withholding the permit then not allowing me to complete it, until I will agree to meet alternate installation standardsI have provided all necessary documents to the county, as the homeowners could confirm with a simple callI was not allowed access to complete the agreed upon contract, therefore it has been breachedAlso, I never billed them for any of the servicesWhy would they have paid me all but the wood work costs if it did not initially look like what they originally expected?The other issues were discussed with the inspector before presenting a plan to the homeownersThe only reason we had additional problems is because Mr [redacted] provided an alternate installation manual to the inspectorAs I stated he was trying to get me to reinstall the entire roof in a different manner matching an "image 2" installationNotice in my plan I state I will continue the work until the roof passes inspection, which would mean all concerns would have been addressedI provided the same condensed technical reference to the inspector along with the energy star information and the items listed on my "plan" were what remained to be addressedBeyond that I would have been called on additional Corrections if there were a problem, and would have fixed themThe fact is I was not allowed to do so!Additionally, a "cleated fastener, image 2" style of installation, would require many additional materials, compared to what was agreed upon, not to mention many more hours in labor to installIt would have been a more expensive installation and not covered by the contracted amountWhy would the homeowners have paid for the material on arrival if the "expected" additional flashings were not present before installation? Also the manufacturer can validate the fact that Mr [redacted] tried to have the roof changed to an "image 2" installation, as they were called out to the property and experienced this manipulation themselvesThe manufacturer was also contacted by an "image 2" rep, claiming Mr [redacted] called image and complained that an "image2" roof sold by metals direct, was inappropriately installedMetals direct explained to the image rep that the product sold was a metals direct "energy pro-loc" product, where the complaint met a dead endHe provided an imageinstall manual to the inspectorIf he wanted an "image2" roof, why did we contract for an "energy pro-loc" roof system? Although this is evident in the email requesting an installation manual, where Mr [redacted] did not even list "Metals Direct energy pro-loc" in his description of the desired manual, image2, metals direct, and the county inspector can be contacted and confirm that Mr [redacted] was insistent in now meeting an "image 2" installationI don't understand how they can now suggest I was not prevented from completing the Corrections with a mountain of evidence otherwise!?? Please show me in contract law where I must have an additional written contract, to complete a signed, agreed upon contract, as I attempted on several occasions to complete the original contract?
I am rejecting this response because:We have never denied Graphic Roofing permission to make repairsPlease refer to our documentation previously submittedWe only simply asked for a plan of action before the repairs were made, which *** *referred to a picture with three words via email with how this work was to be completedWe did not feel this was an adequate example considering this was a $22,dollar jobWe asked for a reference book and page number, which was denied by Graphic RoofingPlease see previously submitted documentation. He has not addressed how repairs will be made for all items that were called out by county inspector- *** ***We are willing and would like the repairs to be made, but with a proper professional plan of action as any contractor would be willing and able to submit. This would need to be permitted work so we can complete this inspectionTo this date, we still have a roof that fails to comply to county code that was installed by Graphic RoofingTherefore, we reject solving this claim
The cool roof form was filled out when I opened the permit and the inspector had missed it, but then noticed it when I looked at the permit file with him. The roof has an energy star rating. The fact that the homeowners dispute the use of stitch screws validates their desire to alter the contract as they were fully aware of the use of screws and after the install, decided that they wanted "cleated fasteners" instead. The use of screws was explained and showed by picture, to the [redacted]s before a proposal was ever made. The flashing was installed incorrectly because it was not pitched enough, causing ponding. That is why I was going to reinstall the "gambrel flashing" as stated. "installation manual per county inspection requirements" is the "condensed technical reference", as the manufacturer does not publish an installation manual, as we are all aware. Additionally, though I did provide a work plan for Correction, I am not required to do so, as our contract is a stated work plan, that has been mutually agreed upon and is what is relevant to what is expected. All of this is an attempt to make a change order, through coersion, by first withholding the permit then not allowing me to complete it, until I will agree to meet alternate installation standards. I have provided all necessary documents to the county, as the homeowners could confirm with a simple call. I was not allowed access to complete the agreed upon contract, therefore it has been breached. Also, I never billed them for any of the services. Why would they have paid me all but the wood work costs if it did not initially look like what they originally expected?The other issues were discussed with the inspector before presenting a plan to the homeowners. The only reason we had additional problems is because Mr. [redacted] provided an alternate installation manual to the inspector. As I stated he was trying to get me to reinstall the entire roof in a different manner matching an "image 2" installation. Notice in my plan I state I will continue the work until the roof passes inspection, which would mean all concerns would have been addressed. I provided the same condensed technical reference to the inspector along with the energy star information and the items listed on my "plan" were what remained to be addressed. Beyond that I would have been called on additional Corrections if there were a problem, and would have fixed them. The fact is I was not allowed to do so!Additionally, a "cleated fastener, image 2" style of installation, would require many additional materials, compared to what was agreed upon, not to mention many more hours in labor to install. It would have been a more expensive installation and not covered by the contracted amount. Why would the homeowners have paid for the material on arrival if the "expected" additional flashings were not present before installation? Also the manufacturer can validate the fact that Mr [redacted] tried to have the roof changed to an "image 2" installation, as they were called out to the property and experienced this manipulation themselves. The manufacturer was also contacted by an "image 2" rep, claiming Mr [redacted] called image 2 and complained that an "image2" roof sold by metals direct, was inappropriately installed. Metals direct explained to the image 2 rep that the product sold was a metals direct "energy pro-loc" product, where the complaint met a dead end. He provided an image2 install manual to the inspector. If he wanted an "image2" roof, why did we contract for an "energy pro-loc" roof system? Although this is evident in the email requesting an installation manual, where Mr. [redacted] did not even list "Metals Direct energy pro-loc" in his description of the desired manual, image2, metals direct, and the county inspector can be contacted and confirm that Mr. [redacted] was insistent in now meeting an "image 2" installation. I don't understand how they can now suggest I was not prevented from completing the Corrections with a mountain of evidence otherwise!?? Please show me in contract law where I must have an additional written contract, to complete a signed, agreed upon contract, as I attempted on several occasions to complete the original contract?
I attempted on multiple occasions to gain access to the customers property; by phone, text, mail, email, and physically showing up with necessary materials in hand. On the final request, I informed the homeowners, in writing, that if I were not allowed access to complete the roof as contracted,...
making the corrections, per the inspectors corrections card, I would be holding them in breach of contract, cancelling and releasing liability to the job permit, and would not be pursuing the additional labor expense of $1200 for all of the wood work, above and beyond the contract. (Which is more than enough to make the necessary corrections) They did not grant me access, so I followed through as warned and warrented, informing them of my actions at the building department, that they were in breach of contract, and I would not peruse the remaining $1200 balance. We have had no further communication.
The cool roof form was filled out when I opened the permit and the inspector had missed it, but then noticed it when I looked at the permit file with himThe roof has an energy star ratingThe fact that the homeowners dispute the use of stitch screws validates their desire to alter the contract as they were fully aware of the use of screws and after the install, decided that they wanted "cleated fasteners" insteadThe use of screws was explained and showed by picture, to the [redacted] s before a proposal was ever madeThe flashing was installed incorrectly because it was not pitched enough, causing pondingThat is why I was going to reinstall the "gambrel flashing" as stated"installation manual per county inspection requirements" is the "condensed technical reference", as the manufacturer does not publish an installation manual, as we are all awareAdditionally, though I did provide a work plan for Correction, I am not required to do so, as our contract is a stated work plan, that has been mutually agreed upon and is what is relevant to what is expectedAll of this is an attempt to make a change order, through coersion, by first withholding the permit then not allowing me to complete it, until I will agree to meet alternate installation standardsI have provided all necessary documents to the county, as the homeowners could confirm with a simple callI was not allowed access to complete the agreed upon contract, therefore it has been breachedAlso, I never billed them for any of the servicesWhy would they have paid me all but the wood work costs if it did not initially look like what they originally expected?The other issues were discussed with the inspector before presenting a plan to the homeownersThe only reason we had additional problems is because Mr [redacted] provided an alternate installation manual to the inspectorAs I stated he was trying to get me to reinstall the entire roof in a different manner matching an "image 2" installationNotice in my plan I state I will continue the work until the roof passes inspection, which would mean all concerns would have been addressedI provided the same condensed technical reference to the inspector along with the energy star information and the items listed on my "plan" were what remained to be addressedBeyond that I would have been called on additional Corrections if there were a problem, and would have fixed themThe fact is I was not allowed to do so!Additionally, a "cleated fastener, image 2" style of installation, would require many additional materials, compared to what was agreed upon, not to mention many more hours in labor to installIt would have been a more expensive installation and not covered by the contracted amountWhy would the homeowners have paid for the material on arrival if the "expected" additional flashings were not present before installation? Also the manufacturer can validate the fact that Mr [redacted] tried to have the roof changed to an "image 2" installation, as they were called out to the property and experienced this manipulation themselvesThe manufacturer was also contacted by an "image 2" rep, claiming Mr [redacted] called image and complained that an "image2" roof sold by metals direct, was inappropriately installedMetals direct explained to the image rep that the product sold was a metals direct "energy pro-loc" product, where the complaint met a dead endHe provided an imageinstall manual to the inspectorIf he wanted an "image2" roof, why did we contract for an "energy pro-loc" roof system? Although this is evident in the email requesting an installation manual, where Mr [redacted] did not even list "Metals Direct energy pro-loc" in his description of the desired manual, image2, metals direct, and the county inspector can be contacted and confirm that Mr [redacted] was insistent in now meeting an "image 2" installationI don't understand how they can now suggest I was not prevented from completing the Corrections with a mountain of evidence otherwise!?? Please show me in contract law where I must have an additional written contract, to complete a signed, agreed upon contract, as I attempted on several occasions to complete the original contract?
I am rejecting this response because:We have never denied Graphic Roofing permission to make repairsPlease refer to our documentation previously submittedWe only simply asked for a plan of action before the repairs were made, which *** *referred to a picture with three words via email with how this work was to be completedWe did not feel this was an adequate example considering this was a $22,dollar jobWe asked for a reference book and page number, which was denied by Graphic RoofingPlease see previously submitted documentation. He has not addressed how repairs will be made for all items that were called out by county inspector- *** ***We are willing and would like the repairs to be made, but with a proper professional plan of action as any contractor would be willing and able to submit. This would need to be permitted work so we can complete this inspectionTo this date, we still have a roof that fails to comply to county code that was installed by Graphic RoofingTherefore, we reject solving this claim
The cool roof form was filled out when I opened the permit and the inspector had missed it, but then noticed it when I looked at the permit file with him. The roof has an energy star rating. The fact that the homeowners dispute the use of stitch screws validates their desire to alter the contract as they were fully aware of the use of screws and after the install, decided that they wanted "cleated fasteners" instead. The use of screws was explained and showed by picture, to the [redacted]s before a proposal was ever made. The flashing was installed incorrectly because it was not pitched enough, causing ponding. That is why I was going to reinstall the "gambrel flashing" as stated. "installation manual per county inspection requirements" is the "condensed technical reference", as the manufacturer does not publish an installation manual, as we are all aware. Additionally, though I did provide a work plan for Correction, I am not required to do so, as our contract is a stated work plan, that has been mutually agreed upon and is what is relevant to what is expected. All of this is an attempt to make a change order, through coersion, by first withholding the permit then not allowing me to complete it, until I will agree to meet alternate installation standards. I have provided all necessary documents to the county, as the homeowners could confirm with a simple call. I was not allowed access to complete the agreed upon contract, therefore it has been breached. Also, I never billed them for any of the services. Why would they have paid me all but the wood work costs if it did not initially look like what they originally expected?The other issues were discussed with the inspector before presenting a plan to the homeowners. The only reason we had additional problems is because Mr. [redacted] provided an alternate installation manual to the inspector. As I stated he was trying to get me to reinstall the entire roof in a different manner matching an "image 2" installation. Notice in my plan I state I will continue the work until the roof passes inspection, which would mean all concerns would have been addressed. I provided the same condensed technical reference to the inspector along with the energy star information and the items listed on my "plan" were what remained to be addressed. Beyond that I would have been called on additional Corrections if there were a problem, and would have fixed them. The fact is I was not allowed to do so!Additionally, a "cleated fastener, image 2" style of installation, would require many additional materials, compared to what was agreed upon, not to mention many more hours in labor to install. It would have been a more expensive installation and not covered by the contracted amount. Why would the homeowners have paid for the material on arrival if the "expected" additional flashings were not present before installation? Also the manufacturer can validate the fact that Mr [redacted] tried to have the roof changed to an "image 2" installation, as they were called out to the property and experienced this manipulation themselves. The manufacturer was also contacted by an "image 2" rep, claiming Mr [redacted] called image 2 and complained that an "image2" roof sold by metals direct, was inappropriately installed. Metals direct explained to the image 2 rep that the product sold was a metals direct "energy pro-loc" product, where the complaint met a dead end. He provided an image2 install manual to the inspector. If he wanted an "image2" roof, why did we contract for an "energy pro-loc" roof system? Although this is evident in the email requesting an installation manual, where Mr. [redacted] did not even list "Metals Direct energy pro-loc" in his description of the desired manual, image2, metals direct, and the county inspector can be contacted and confirm that Mr. [redacted] was insistent in now meeting an "image 2" installation. I don't understand how they can now suggest I was not prevented from completing the Corrections with a mountain of evidence otherwise!?? Please show me in contract law where I must have an additional written contract, to complete a signed, agreed upon contract, as I attempted on several occasions to complete the original contract?
I attempted on multiple occasions to gain access to the customers property; by phone, text, mail, email, and physically showing up with necessary materials in hand. On the final request, I informed the homeowners, in writing, that if I were not allowed access to complete the roof as contracted,...
making the corrections, per the inspectors corrections card, I would be holding them in breach of contract, cancelling and releasing liability to the job permit, and would not be pursuing the additional labor expense of $1200 for all of the wood work, above and beyond the contract. (Which is more than enough to make the necessary corrections) They did not grant me access, so I followed through as warned and warrented, informing them of my actions at the building department, that they were in breach of contract, and I would not peruse the remaining $1200 balance. We have had no further communication.