Honey Do Franchising Group, Inc.

Review: Paid for a new metal roof to be placed on our house. It was put on over at least 6 layers of old material that they did not remove. The roof sticks up too far and rain is pouring into the inside of our house, causing more damage. There are screw holes where screws were removed and placed in other locations, holes were not filled in. Ridge cap is too short and the sheets of metal are too short is some places and too long in others. Felt paper is showing in some places. Roof was patched with sheet metal rather than wood. New drip edge was included in contract but was only installed in pieces and other places left without.Desired Settlement: Refund so that we can get a replacement roof.

Business

Response:

The Honey Do Service, Inc. guarantees all of our quality work with a one-year-warranty. Unfortunately, when we came to assess your issues on July 5, 2013, it was apparent that the damage to your roof was caused by the contractor you hired after us to install your gutters. A city inspector visited your home to inspect our work twice and both times it was found to be in good condition and passed inspection per state code. With regard to the complaint that the new roofing system “was put on over at least 6 layers of old material”, it is not required to pull up the old material and when given the choice and difference in cost to pull it up, you opted to have the new roofing system installed over the old. The gaps between the roof and fascia board and the lack of drip edge & flashing (the causes of rain entering your home) are the result of the contractor you hired to install gutters pulling it back to install the gutters and not replacing it or even completing the project. We sympathize with your situation, but we just can't be held accountable for the faulty craftsmanship of another contractor. We provided you with a quote to fix his mistakes and would be more than happy to assist you in that capacity.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.We did hire a contractor to install new gutters on our house; however, the contractor we hired is the same sub-contractor that Honey-Do Services had hired to do our roof. A city inspector did come and inspect the roof twice, however that inspector never came inside of the house into the attic to inspect and never got up onto the roof to inspect. Since those two inspections, we have contacted City Code Enforcement/Inspectors and they have come back out to our property and gotten on the roof and inspected in our attic. There are two patches to the roof that are not to code, which were not found at the time of the original inspection. The inspector stated that our city code does not specifically state how many layers of shingles are acceptable under a metal roof, but the inspector states that six layers is not acceptable per industry standards. However, we have pulled a copy of our city code and it does state the following... "Section R907.3 Recovering versus replacement: New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions exist: (#3) Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering." We were never given the option to pay extra to have the old shingles removed, as the owner of Honey-Do states in his response to Revdex.com. We were aware that there was an issue with the height of the existing layers because work was stopped on our house for a couple of days as he had to special order longer screws so that they would go through the metal and into the roof. At the time we asked Brad Fluke (owner of Honey-Do) if that was proper procedure and were assured that it was standard practice to lay new metal over any number of existing layers of shingles. We also have multiple witnesses who were working on-site that Brad Fluke insisted that we leave on the old shingles and just use longer screws. This is probably how the new metal got so many holes in it; short standard screws were originally placed in the new metal but were not long enough to anchor the metal to the roof, then those short screws were removed and the new longer ones were placed in new locations, leaving open holes all over the roof. As far as his response regarding the gaps between the roof and the fascia board and the lack of drip edge, the contractor that we hired to do the gutters would not have needed to do anything to drip edge, much less cut away some pieces and leave other gaps. Our contract with Honey-Do states "Install appropriate flashing at drip edge, ridge cap and wall connections as necessary". The lack of drip edge and fascia board was never brought to my attention by Brad Fluke and we were not given the option to correct any problems that were found, but it was already included in our contract that they would be fixed if there was a problem. These are not all of the problems that we are having with the roof. There are many workmanship issues including tar paper showing, around corners where metal was cut too short, numerous scratches in the metal which were spray painted with a brown paint to try to cover the damage (which doesn't even match). Mr. Fluke did come out to our home to see our complaints and problems back in July, and gave us an outrageous quote on fixing the work that he originally did incorrectly. We reject the response made by Mr. Fluke and do hold him responsible for the improper installation of our roof, as well as the poor workmanship of the work that was done, despite the fact that he is trying to blame other contractors for the poor work that his company performed. Regards,[redacted]

Business

Response:

Our workmanship was found in good condition and done to-code by the city inspector upon completion. The Honey Do Service, Inc. stands by its assessment that the damage to your roof is the result of improper installation of your guttering system performed by another contractor.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.We do not believe that Honey-Do's response is acceptable. He is responsible for the poor-quality work his company did. This matter will have to be settled in court.Regards,[redacted]