Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/11/02) */ After reviewing the photos attached above and speaking to the individuals involved, we came to the conclusion that this incident does not qualify as a warranty claimIn order for the warranty to apply, the hail would have had to split, crack or perforate the roofWe reviewed the attached photos of the roof and spoke to the installation manager, Allen [redacted] , (who was on the roof to do the intial service) and he confirmed that while there was hail damage across the roof, there was no evidence of any of splitting, cracking etcWhile our installation manager indicates that he used the term hail damage when he advised the homeowner of same, he also says that he said it was cosmetic onlyOur material warranty does not extend to purely cosmetic issues and as well, the warranty coverage for hail damage would only be extended if the splitting, cracking or perforation actualy affected the performance of the roofWe do not see any signs of this type of failure However, to ensure that Ms [redacted] is confident with our conclusions and in the roof itself (and given that we made this decision in part on the above photographs), we would like to retain a 3rd party roofing inspector to inspect the roof to confirm that there has been no splitting or cracking etc and that the functionality of the roof is intactWe can make these arrangements with Ms [redacted] directly or through your office Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/11/09) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Allen [redacted] and Russ [redacted] indicated numerous times this hail damage was significant enough to fixWe believed Interlock's personnel and did as instructed e.gfiled a claim with our insurance companywhen that didn't result in a sale for Interlock (Russ even came out to have us sign sales papers based on the claim) but a claim for them, they've changed their stories indicating they said it was cosmetic all alongThis is completely and certainly a misrepresentation of the initial Interlock sales person's indication that the roof would maintain its look except for some fading which included hail damage per their warranty; it's one of the reasons we bought the roof I've retained counsel who will be contacting Interlock on my behalf In terms of having a 3rd party inspection, I will permit the inspection, but dispute that my claim is not covered by warranty especially when two Interlock personnel have indicated on numerous occasions the hail damage needs to be fixed Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (3000, 13, 2015/12/03) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Allen [redacted] and Russ [redacted] indicated numerous times this hail damage was significant enough to fixWe believed Interlock's personnel and did as instructed e.gfiled a claim with our insurance companywhen that didn't result in a sale for Interlock (Russ even came out to have us sign sales papers based on the claim) but a claim for them, they've changed their stories indicating they said it was cosmetic all alongThis is completely and certainly a misrepresentation of the initial Interlock sales person's indication that the roof would maintain its look except for some fading which included hail damage per their warranty; it's one of the reasons we bought the roof I've retained counsel who will be contacting Interlock on my behalf In terms of having a 3rd party inspection, I will permit the inspection, but dispute that my claim is not covered by warranty especially when two Interlock personnel have indicated on numerous occasions the hail damage needs to be fixed
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/11/02) */ After reviewing the photos attached above and speaking to the individuals involved, we came to the conclusion that this incident does not qualify as a warranty claimIn order for the warranty to apply, the hail would have had to split, crack or perforate the roofWe reviewed the attached photos of the roof and spoke to the installation manager, Allen [redacted] , (who was on the roof to do the intial service) and he confirmed that while there was hail damage across the roof, there was no evidence of any of splitting, cracking etcWhile our installation manager indicates that he used the term hail damage when he advised the homeowner of same, he also says that he said it was cosmetic onlyOur material warranty does not extend to purely cosmetic issues and as well, the warranty coverage for hail damage would only be extended if the splitting, cracking or perforation actualy affected the performance of the roofWe do not see any signs of this type of failure However, to ensure that Ms [redacted] is confident with our conclusions and in the roof itself (and given that we made this decision in part on the above photographs), we would like to retain a 3rd party roofing inspector to inspect the roof to confirm that there has been no splitting or cracking etc and that the functionality of the roof is intactWe can make these arrangements with Ms [redacted] directly or through your office Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/11/09) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Allen [redacted] and Russ [redacted] indicated numerous times this hail damage was significant enough to fixWe believed Interlock's personnel and did as instructed e.gfiled a claim with our insurance companywhen that didn't result in a sale for Interlock (Russ even came out to have us sign sales papers based on the claim) but a claim for them, they've changed their stories indicating they said it was cosmetic all alongThis is completely and certainly a misrepresentation of the initial Interlock sales person's indication that the roof would maintain its look except for some fading which included hail damage per their warranty; it's one of the reasons we bought the roof I've retained counsel who will be contacting Interlock on my behalf In terms of having a 3rd party inspection, I will permit the inspection, but dispute that my claim is not covered by warranty especially when two Interlock personnel have indicated on numerous occasions the hail damage needs to be fixed Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (3000, 13, 2015/12/03) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Allen [redacted] and Russ [redacted] indicated numerous times this hail damage was significant enough to fixWe believed Interlock's personnel and did as instructed e.gfiled a claim with our insurance companywhen that didn't result in a sale for Interlock (Russ even came out to have us sign sales papers based on the claim) but a claim for them, they've changed their stories indicating they said it was cosmetic all alongThis is completely and certainly a misrepresentation of the initial Interlock sales person's indication that the roof would maintain its look except for some fading which included hail damage per their warranty; it's one of the reasons we bought the roof I've retained counsel who will be contacting Interlock on my behalf In terms of having a 3rd party inspection, I will permit the inspection, but dispute that my claim is not covered by warranty especially when two Interlock personnel have indicated on numerous occasions the hail damage needs to be fixed