King's-Quality Restoration Services, LLC

King's-Quality Restoration Services was contracted March 4, 2013 to replace the roof.  We were also hired to install gutter guard and repair a ceiling inside the home.  This damage was determined to be caused by hail/wind and was covered under an insurance claim.  In June of that same...

year, our project coordinator was contacted directly by the homeowner to inspect some sort of leaking.  Upon inspection, no leak was found from the roof area but from a hole found behind the gutter on the rear of the home.  The hole was sealed with a silicone caulk.  At no time did the homeowner mention any nail heads visible on the roof.  Some time later (not certain of the date) the homeowner again contacted the coordinator about another leak he had found in a different area of the home.  Upon inspection this time, it was found to be a problem with the siding and fascia metal on the upper front left of the home where the exterior wall dies into the roofline on the second level.  This problem was pointed out to the homeowner and it was explained that this was not due to storm damage or the roof repair, but a maintenance issue.  The area was repaired with new metal and the leak area sealed.  At the time of this repair, no mention was made of any interior damages done due to either of these leaks and our coordinator was not asked to inspect any wet carpet or ceiling damage.  Again, the issue of nail heads being visible was not mentioned at this time or noted by the coordinator.  This repair was the last time anyone from King's-Quality Restoration Services was contacted or was at the property.  Our coordinator was not told of any such nail heads visible and did not caulk or cover anything on the roof.  There was never any conversation about exposed nail heads being "industry standard".  I am concerned that the homeowner felt it necessary to personally include the name of the coordinator involved but neglected to include the names of the 2 "respectable roofing companies" he paid to inspect his roof. This was an insurance claim and if there were any problems with the installation, they should have been the first to be called to report it.  If our company would have been made aware of any issues regarding the roof or it's installation, we would have taken the appropriate action to correct the issue immediately.  It has been 3 years and 3 months since the roof was installed.  In that time, the Louisville Metro area has been hit with 95 hail storm events with hail greater than 1/2 inch and 220 wind storm events with winds averaging 35 mph or greater.  The current leak may be new damage to the home or another maintenance issue.The total cost of repairs charged the homeowner was $10,281.84.  Not $11,888.00 mentioned.  The homeowner was made aware of maintenance issues that his home had that would not be covered under insurance that he chose not to correct or repair.  Given the 3 year, 3 month time lapse and the weather over that time our area has seen, I feel it is unreasonable to expect King's-Quality Restoration Services to pay for any repairs to this home without knowing if the damage is in fact a maintenance issue or caused by another storm.  What I propose is that we send a roofing company we feel is reputable to inspect the roof to verify if the roof was installed properly or if new damage has occurred.  The homeowner is welcome to have one of his roofing companies there as well to walk through the inspection and point out what they feel to be unsatisfactory workmanship.  King's-Quality Restoration Services is a licensed contractor in the Louisville/Metro area and therefore, any permits and/or inspections would have been addressed any "code" violations if they existed.  We would like the opportunity to re-inspect the work done and work together to find a suitable resolution for all parties. Respectfully submitted by [redacted], CEO King'-Quality Restoration Services LLC

I feel badly about doing things this way but, something between Aol and/or the Revdex.com website has erased 2 attempts at a rebuttal to King's reply to the initial complaint filed in July. However, I am not about to let them get away with such shoddy workmanship and ridiculously poor follow up due to the problems of a leaking roof that they installed only 3 years ago. So, what I am doing is addressing each sentence with mine and my wife's version of what has been going on since the roof was installed in March of 2013.       Sentence # 2, We had damage from a bad leak which formed suddenly thru our old roof. We got King's business info thru our homeowner's ins. co. King's repaired interior damages, which was done very nicely, and was contracted to replace the old roof.  Part of that work was installing gutter guard.         Sentence # 3, [redacted] Co. refused to accept a claim for any of the work performed so all expenses were out of pocket.       Sentences # 4, 5 and 6,   ~ 2-3 months after the roof was installed we had a severe leak occur inside the house resulting in water damage to part of the ceiling and upper parts of two walls. King's was notified and their Project Coordinator ( PC ) came out to inspect. The "hole" that the PC mentions apparently has been there since the house was built. No leaking has ever occurred there until after this new roof was installed. The PC theorized that water backed up over the gutter guard and caused water to enter the "hole". We were never told that problems with water backing up over the gutter guard might occur. The PC did caulk the "hole" and cut an opening in the gutter guard as a means to help prevent water from backing up again.  In addressing the water damage inside the house, the PC agreed to send over at King's expense the fellow that had originally painted the interior as part of the original repairs and repaint the water damaged areas. The PC stated he would send this guy AFTER the wet areas dried. However, the painter came over within a few days and painted the areas while they were still wet. Within a few months the pain peeled away revealing bare areas as well as damaged wall board. These damaged areas are still present.         Sentence # 7, ~ one week after the roof was installed I called King's to discuss my displeasure at the quality of workmanship and of the 95-100 exposed nail heads that my dtr. helped count. The PC came over as well as a rep from the co. with the last name of King. The 3 of us went up on the roof and I pointed out the exposed nail heads. I also pointed out areas of bad/ rotten wood and soffit that were still present and now covered over by new shingles. Before the new roof was installed I specifically discussed with the PC re: repair and replacement of any bad/rotten sections. He stated that this would be addressed and taken care of once the old roof was removed. When the 3 of us were up on the roof I asked him directly why wasn't that done and his reply was "that costs extra."  Re: the exposed nail heads, the PC said he would have someone come over and caulk over the exposed nail heads. It was within the next week that someone did come over apparently during the day while my wife and I were at work and did do some caulking. The person who came over did shoddy work and I personally had to do more caulking myself because of poor work that was performed as well as covering nail heads that this person missed.  If no mention was made of exposed nail heads then why did the PC send someone over to caulk them?         Sentences # 9, 10 and 11,   ~ a year later leak # 2 occurred and this time in another area of the roof more on the opposite side of the house. King's was called and the PC came over and I showed him where water was coming inside the house running down mostly the inside of the wall and where an ~  3' diameter  section of carpet had gotten wet. I'm puzzled that the PC stated that this leak was due to a "maintenance" issue. What maintenance. There had never been a leak in this area of the roof until AFTER the new roof was installed.  Apparently, the PC did some caulking in this area and I'm not sure what else, but he said the problem should be taken care of. Re:  the wet carpet, the PC told ME I should pull up the wet carpet and remove the wet padding underneath. Once everything was dried then I should replace the padding. with new dry padding. And I was left wondering why King's did not offer to make repairs due to damages caused by their poor quality roof installation.        Sentence # 12,  This is a blatant lie.   I get so mad when I read this statement.  My wife was present during each of the visits by the PC. She will gladly confirm that the PC was shown damages by both of these leaks. Why else would he be telling ME how to repair the damaged carpet.   Why did he send the painter guy out following the 1st leak to due some repainting?  During this  2nd visit, I again showed the PC how damages from the 1st leak had gotten worse. He told ME that I should go to Lowe's and get what he called "20 minute mud."  I apparently was to use this "mud" to paste over the damaged areas of the ceiling and walls and once dry sand and repaint.   Sentence # 13, the business with the nail heads has already been discussed.       Sentence # 14,  another lie. Leak # 3 occurred a short time after the 2nd leak. Leak # 3 occurred in the same area as the 2nd leak. Again, King's was notified and the PC again came out ( again ) and did some cursory repairs up on the roof. I'm not sure what the repairs entailed. Again the PC was shown the wet carpet. Again I was told how to go about doing repairs to the wet carpet.  I explained to the PC that I was Uncomfortable with pulling up the carpet as I did not know how to go about anchoring it back down. I explained to him that what I did was to immediately use my shop vac to suck out as much water as I could and had a fan running over this area for about a week. At this time I do not know to what extent, if any, there is of any permanent damage to the carpet or to the padding.        Sentence # 15, Another lie. This matter has already been discussed.      Sentence # 16  another lie.  When the 3 of us went up on the roof ~ one week after the initial roof installation and I specifically pointed out the exposed nail heads, that is when the PC used the term "industry standard."  Where else would I get a term like that. So yes, the term "industry standard" was used by the PC less than a week after the roof was installed. My wife will confirm.   As a side note, I have been to numerous roofing repair web sites and nail heads should never be left exposed. One example I found where if a nail head was to be left exposed such as on flashing, what's called a gasket screw is used. I even went to a site where the reader can send in questions re: roofing repairs and the reply was very explicit, no exposed nail heads.     Sentence # 17,  The 1st roof inspection, that I paid for out of pocket, took place May 30, 2013. I still have the paperwork. I had a 2nd inspection done which was similar to the 1st so I did not keep the paperwork. I have had a 3rd inspection which took place 2 weeks ago Aug. 3rd. I am still waiting for the paperwork. Each of these inspections pointed out the shoddy workmanship and where water is most likely entering the house as a result of the work. Why was I not allowed to use the name of the PC? He works for and represents King's and he has been the one coming over to address all of the leaks and concerns.       Sentence # 18, As already stated, [redacted]'s Ins. refused to make any payment towards the claim filed re: the roof and interior damages. Everything was paid out of pocket.  So no the ins. co. was not notified.      Sentence # 19, King's was made aware of the issues by the home owner and the PC chose not to do anything re" the interior damages caused by the leaks following installation of the new roof.       Sentence # 20, I don't care if it has been 3 years or 13 years. 5 leaks should not have occurred in 3 years and 4 months time.     By the way, did I mention the other leaks?  Leak # 4 occurred in the same area as leaks # 2 and 3. Again, the wall and carpet got wet. This time I did not bother to contact King's. I instead filed a complaint with the Revdex.com.  Then, Monday night, July 4th, of this year, leak # 5 occurred. This time it was in the same area as leak # 1. It was around 10 PM when I noticed water running down the wall and dripping over an opening between the kitchen and the back room. I quickly grabbed a bucket and caught the water before any damage occurred to the floor. To say I was outraged would be an understatement. I went online to the King's web site and found several phone numbers listed. I chose one at random and called expecting to leave a voice msg.  Instead, a person answered the phone with the last name of King. I described the situation somewhat demanded that he send someone out the next day and address the problem I got no other response from him and no one came out.        Sentence # 21, please do tell me where you got your statistics re: 95 hail storm events with hail greater than 1/2 inch and 220 wind storm events with winds averaging 35 MPH.  And please be a little more specific re: weather events over 2512 Brighton Drive.       Sentence # 22, what maintenance issues? This is a NEW roof. My house should be secure from any leaks. Hail is going to damage the shingles and the roofs on my neighbors' houses and cars out in the street.       Sentence # 23, We paid a total of $11.888 and some change for the interior work and a new roof. My wife and I cannot find the original paperwork. There was a yellow copy and a white copy. We are still looking for verification of the costs. Re: of the total, the problem with the roof and the interior damages caused as a result of the leaky roof FOLLOWING installation by King's remains.    Sentence # 25, what maintenance issues?  I specifically discussed with the PC re: any problems found after the old roof was removed would/could they be fixed and/or repaired. He assured me that they would. As stated earlier, after the new roof was installed, to cover up the mistake that the roofing crew made in not making these repairs, the PC countered that "that costs extra."  So, I didn't choose to not have the issues corrected, the crew that King's sent out were apparently not made aware by the PC to correct issues that have been mentioned.    Sentence # 25, I welcome King's to send out a reputable roofer and I will have someone here as well. We also need to discuss how is King's going to repair the interior damages caused as a result of the,up to now, 5 leaks.  What bothers my wife and I as much as anything is when we first made contact with King's and first started meeting with the PC we felt very confident in his skills and abilities. We were obviously very concerned re: the big leak which occurred upstairs in our dtrs. bedroom and the damages that occurred. We wanted one co. that we could count on to take care of the interior damages as well as installing a new roof. We met with the PC several times and he definitely seemed very knowledgeable. The interior repairs were taken care of very professionally. When the roofing crew came to do their thing, the PC was present, but for only a short while. He told me he would not be around thru out the installation but assured me they would do excellent work. My wife and I both feel very strongly that if the PC had stayed around to oversee the new roof installation we would not be having these issues.                     So, what am /i asking as a resolution? I simply want my roof fixed so it doesn't leak anymore and I want the interior damages caused by the 5 leaks AFTER the new roof installation be repaired. You say you do quality work now stand by your word.   Let me ask the co. owner, what would you do if your new roof leaked 5 times in less than 3 1/2 years?