Ledegar Roofing Company, Inc.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
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.  Consumer states he will tack this up as a lesson learned. He was never made aware the business had to pull someone off another job. He will pay the remainder of what is owed.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I stand behind the accuracy of my dates, the timeline of
events, and communications with [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]’s helper, and [redacted].  This information can be referenced in my
letter to Mr. [redacted], President of Ledegar Roofing (1-25-16), Revdex.com complaint
(1-26-16), my 1st rebuttal to Ledegar’s response (1-28-16), and this
2nd rebuttal to Ledegar’s response (2-9-16).I called Ledegar on 7-17-15 primarily about the leak into
our family room.  Since a technician
would be at my home to assess the situation, I wanted him to look at 2 other
different areas of concern for an opinion.  The $134 bill in question has nothing to do with the 2 other areas.  The 2 pictures on the right, in Ledegar’s
attachment, do not deal with the leak being addressed and only serve to confuse
the issue.  On 7-20-15, [redacted] only told us
about one problem—the problem with the flashing which caused the leak into our
family room.  If [redacted] mentioned this
problem to [redacted] and his helper who came to fix the leak on 8-5-15, it was
disregarded.  [redacted] also disregarded this
information when I told him about it before he started his work on our
roof.  In the 2nd paragraph of
Ledegar’s response it’s stated, “The leak inside was not due to the roof, this
was a siding leak.”  (i. e. where the
siding and flashing meet was a 2 finger-sized hole.)  This was the cause of the leak inside our
house that I called about on 7-17-15 and also on 12-14-15.  Why wasn’t it fixed on 8-5-15 during [redacted] and
his helper’s service call?  Why was this
leak not fixed until 12-14-15?The leak inside our house occurred only 2 times—7-17-15 and
12-14-15.  It only happened when
conditions were right (i.e. significant rain, wind, and water pooling).  [redacted] (who diagnosed the problem on 7-20-15)
and [redacted] (who fixed the problem on 12-14-15) both explained this cause and
effect situation to us.  The only leak we
have ever had in our family room roof was this leak where the flashing and
siding meet near the roof transition.  Once [redacted] used a tube of caulk to fill the hole in which 2 fingers
could be inserted, our problem was solved.  The Ledegar Roofing Leak Call Sheet for 12-14-15, which is included as a
Ledegar attachment, states that the problem was the same leak that [redacted] fixed in
September.  (Actually, the date of the
work was 8-5-15, and we paid $228.74 for this leak that wasn’t fixed.)  The description of repair for invoice stated
that [redacted] caulked siding along wall where conduit meets siding; siding had
large gaps.  How could these large holes,
which caused the leak into our family room, have been missed by [redacted] during his
service call on 8-5-15?Contrary to Ledegar’s assertion,
not one of the 4 Ledegar technicians who saw our roof recommended its
replacement to us.  In fact it was only
after we received the second bill from Ledegar with a “Leak Call Inspection
Diagnostic” enclosure, was replacement mentioned.  Replacement was not recommended before making
repairs, only after Ledegar made the repairs.  Repairs totaled $362.74. The roof was installed in 1993 making it 22
years old at the time of Ledegar’s service call.  Rubber roofs typically have a long
life-span.  We have another rubber roof
which is guaranteed for 50 years.  It’s
26 years old and is doing fine.   A
second opinion from another roofing specialist saw no signs of deterioration or
need to replace the roof.Our complaint deals with the fact
that the leak into our family room was not dealt with during the first service
call on 8-5-15.  ([redacted]’s input to [redacted],
and my restating [redacted]’s diagnosis, should have helped [redacted] make the fix.)  I’m also concerned about excessive billing
(i. e. overstating billable hours, having 2 people present and billed  $79 per hour for each when one person is
working and the helper is minimally involved by handing things to [redacted] as he
worked.)  I’m concerned about how details
of this complaint have been misrepresented by Ledegar.  I would like to have my last bill of $134
cancelled.  More than a money issue, this
is a matter of principle.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The timeline [redacted] reported in his response to our
complaint is incorrect as to dates, the sequence of events, and involvement of
workers.Friday, 7-17-15—We called Ledegar about a leak into
our family room.Monday, 7-20-15—[redacted] came and diagnosed the
problem.  ([redacted] is referred to as Worker
1 in our complaint as we didn’t want to disclose his personal information.)  He said our problem involved the white flashing
which ran the length of the south edge of the rubber roof and house.  He was unable to do the work, but he said
someone from Ledegar would contact us that afternoon or the next day.  No one called.  In fact, we waited until 8-5-15 before
calling Ledegar again.  We were not
charged for [redacted]’s time, but apparently his diagnosis was not used or passed on
to the next workers ([redacted] and his helper).  If his diagnosis had been passed on, our leak would have been fixed—a
“simple fix” as [redacted] referred to it in his response.  We would have been charged $125 for a trip
charge plus $9 for a tube of caulk.  Nothing
would have made us happier than for this leak to have been fixed quickly and
efficiently.  If [redacted]’s diagnosis had
been followed up, the next people ([redacted] and his helper) who came to our house
would have fixed the leak.Wednesday, 8-5-15—16 days after [redacted]’s visit, we
called Ledegar to follow-up.  [redacted]
(Worker 2) and his helper (Worker 3) came to our house and were alerted to
[redacted]’s diagnosis which they disregarded.  (They missed the opportunity for a “simple fix” according to [redacted]’s
response.)  Instead, [redacted] fixed a small
hole on the rubber roof and caulked several vents on the siding which had been
there (and were supposed to be there) since the house was built in 1940.  [redacted] and his helper spent a total of 2.5
hours (1.25 hours each) at our house.  We
were billed $79/hour for each of them for a total of $197.50 for labor.  The helper was minimally involved (i.e. handing
things to [redacted] as he worked).  We were
also billed $26.24 for materials, and a trip charge of $5 for a total of
$228.74.  It didn’t take [redacted] very long
to patch the small hole and caulk the vent holes.  The rest of his billable time was spent
drawing and taking pictures of the roof on a small porch.  [redacted] said someone would call us with an
estimate for the porch, we assumed using his photos and drawings.  We felt that billing for an unneeded helper
and [redacted]’s time spent on preliminary work for an estimate (which should have
been free) was an opportunistic move to increase their billable hours.  Even though the bill was excessive, we paid
it in good faith. Tuesday, 10-20-15—76 days after [redacted] and his
helper’s service call, we called Ledegar about the status of our small porch
roof estimate.  [redacted] came on 10-20-15 to
look at the roof and took pictures and made drawings.  Nothing was said of [redacted]’s preliminary
estimate work on 8-5-15 which was included in his billable time.  On 10-22-15, [redacted] gave us his formal
estimate.  There was no charge for this
estimate.  ([redacted]’s estimate for our porch
roof was not included in our original complaint because it has nothing to do
with the leak into our family room.)Monday, 12-14-15—The leak occurred again in our
family room in the exact same location as before.  All Ledegar workers came into the house and
saw the leak’s location ([redacted] on 7-20-15, [redacted] and his helper on 8-5-15, and
[redacted] on 12-14-15).  [redacted]’s response
citing who came when is incorrect.  Also,
our leak only occurred after massive rain storms and had not occurred since
[redacted]’s visit on 7-20-15.  Since the
source of the leak hadn’t been caulked during [redacted] and his helper’s service
call on 8-5-15, it leaked in the same place after a massive storm on
12-14-15.  [redacted] (Worker 4) spent 22
minutes at our house.  He said he could
put 2 fingers into the opening and used a tube of industrial caulk to fill the
hole.  He said the caulk should last for
5 years.  We told him that his fix was
the same fix that [redacted] had diagnosed on 7-20-15.  It would have been a “simple fix” for
everyone concerned if [redacted]’s observations had been followed up in a timely
manner and by the next person who came to our house; however, that didn’t
happen.  We were charged a service fee
(including .75 hours of labor) of $125 and $9 for materials for a total of
$134.  Instead of 45 minutes for labor as
billed, [redacted] spent 22 minutes at our house.  We think the problem of the leak has been solved by a “simple fix” that
took a long time to accomplish.  Ledegar
could have made this an easier process through better internal
communication.  [redacted] and his helper’s
willingness on 8-5-15 to explore [redacted]’s diagnosis of 7-20-15 would have immediately
solved our problem.In closing, the leak that occurred on 7-20-15, and
was diagnosed by [redacted], occurred in the same location on 12-14-15, and was
finally successfully fixed by [redacted].  Because we are confident that this leak, caused by a hole big enough to
put 2 fingers into has been sealed, we aren’t interested in Ledegar’s offer to
do a flood test of our roof, windows, and siding.  We would like them to cancel our last bill of
$134 which represents the cost of the “simple fix” which should have been done during
[redacted] and his helper’s service call on 8-5-15. [redacted]

Review: CONTRACTOR WILL NOT PROVIDE ITEMIZED BILLING STATMENT.

Business

Response:

Please note that your correspondence to Ledegar Roofing is addressed to [redacted] who no longer works here.Now for Mr. [redacted]; he asked us to look at rebuilding his skylights while having another contractor re-roofing his house. The re-roofing had already begun. Mr. *. called desperate because he had the roof open and his contractor was not qualified to rebuild his skylights. We told him we were too busy to do the job on short notice but he insisted. We gave Mr. *. a price in writing in the form of a proposal that he would have to sign before we started. The amount agreed upon, and Mr. ** agreed by signing his proposal, to a price of $4945. He expressed his happiness with our service, only to pay $3000 of the $4945 later, stating he now thought that $3000 was a more fair price. He requested a breakdown of our number afterwards. That information is confidential. If Mr. *. did not agree with the price he should not have signed the agreement. He needed someone now to rebuild his skylights. We rearranged already scheduled customers due to his lack of planning, to come to his rescue. He only disagreed after the work was performed. We will need the balance due from him immediately or must proceed with small claims court and a lien.We perform hundreds of service jobs each year and every once in awhile come across things like this. Our many explanations do not seem good enough for him.[redacted], President, Ledegar Roofing Co., Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Consumer states he will tack this up as a lesson learned. He was never made aware the business had to pull someone off another job. He will pay the remainder of what is owed.

Regards,

Review: Our rubber roof has a flashing between the roof and house. The caulk between the house and rubber roof (behind the flashing) had deteriorated in one place. Worker 1 from Ledegar diagnosed this as the problem and the cause of the leak. Workers 2 and 3 came to our house and were alerted to this problem, but they chose not to deal with it. Instead they fixed a small hole on the rubber roof and caulked several vents on the siding which had been there since the house was built in 1940. Worker 2 also spent quite a bit of time drawing and taking pictures of a small side porch to provide an estimate (estimates are supposed to be free). We felt this was done to increase his and his helper's billable time. Worker 3, the helper, was also billed at $79 an hour, but was minimally involved. This bill was excessive, and we felt Ledegar was being opportunistic, but we paid it.

The leak appeared again in exactly the same place in our house. During the repair process, Workers 1, 2, 3, and 4 all came into the house and saw where the leak was occurring. When Worker 4 arrived at our house, he spent 22 minutes fixing the deteriorating caulk behind the flashing where the house and rubber roof meet. We were billed for this second attempt to fix the same leak.

We wrote a letter to the president of Ledegar Roofing which we will attempt to send with our Revdex.com Complaint Form. The Senior Estimator Chimney Department Manager called and said Ledegar could do nothing to resolve this issue. He said it was "their policy", that it was a different leak, and a siding issue.

We dispute the above: It was the same leak that Worker 1 alerted us to, that Workers 2 and 3 disregarded, and that Worker 4 fixed.Desired Settlement: We have not paid the second bill from Ledegar. We would like them to cancel that bill. Our payment of their first bill dealing with this same leak should more than cover the amount owed. Had Workers 2 and 3 been more responsive and taken a few minutes to explore Worker 1's diagnosis, this problem would have been resolved. Worker 4's service call, and the bill in question, would not have been needed because the leak would have already been fixed.

Business

Response:

We responded to a leak call that we received on 7/16/2016. The complaint was that there was a leak in the living room of the home. Our service technician on site was [redacted] for the first trip. [redacted] found a hole in the rubber roof. [redacted] patched the hole and caulked some vent holes that were on the home. We charged him for the hourly rate. [redacted] had signed a work order to complete the task. The initial bill was $228.14 for materials and labor. The second person who showed up at [redacted]'s home was [redacted]. He was there to look at the small entrance roof that was in need of replacement. [redacted] did not charge [redacted] for his trip to the home because our estimates are free. At this time, the leak was not an issue and [redacted] was there to provide an estimate on another troublesome area of a separate roof. We received another call from [redacted] on 12/14/2104. [redacted] said that the leak was back in the same area. This was (5 months since it had already been repaired and after many rainfalls) We sent out [redacted] to this leak- another service technician who inspected the leak and forwarded it to [redacted]. We did not charge [redacted] for [redacted]s time at his home, so I am not sure why he is even mentioning it. We then sent out [redacted] who found out that there was a hole where the electrical conduit that is fastened 12" above the roof on the wood siding. Due to the expansion and contraction of the electrical conduit the fasteners made an oblong hole in the wood siding. [redacted] then caulked the holes that he found in the siding. [redacted] was charged for the 2nd trip and one tube of caulk. There was no labor added to the bill as it was only a simple fix. I spoke with [redacted] on 1/26/2015 and discussed with him that we charge for our services, however, if the leak was caused by our faulty patch work I would not, as this was a leak that had nothing to do with our original trip and the roof was not installed by Ledegar Roofing. [redacted]'s Revdex.com complaint states that we said we could not resolve the issue; this statement is false. I told him that we could come out in the spring and do a flood test of the roof, windows, siding, etc. and pinpoint this continuing leak issue.

Consumer

Response: