I am rejecting this response because:I did not need a new unit - the old system was working the problem was that from the South East corner of the system water was coming into my attic through the electrical box / elbow duct into the ceiling of the house, wall and floor I only elected to replace the unit and roof curb was so that all repairs could be made that were necessary to fix the problemAir Flow recently told the roofer at the last visit to the house on 11/that he has never replaced a elbow in the last units he has replaced well that was exactly my problemthe elbow had holes and the electrical box had holes which allowed water into my home destroying the ceiling, sheet rock, floor and mold and mildew.The manufacturer provided a 2nd roof curb that alleviated the elbow completelyI am asking for $3,reimbursement this does not cover the cost to the damages to the interior of my home
I am rejecting the claimants response for the following reasons.I was contacted by the contractor that was replacing the roof and asked to provide a quote to replace the system. I was not given specific details on the condition or operational status of the existing system. The contractor that was replacing the roof indicated to me that the existing roof leak was being resolved through the installation of the new roof. The contractor that was replacing the roof was there to do so in order to resolve any and all roof leaks and was contracted to do so before I was contacted to provide a quote to replace the HVAC unit. I was in no way shape or form contracted to resolve any roof leaks or perform repairs on any existing components that could result in a roof leak. The contractor hired to resolve the roof leaks and install a new roof would have been responsible for identifying the leaks, taking proper steps to resolve the issue, then installing the new roof system so that the finished product was leak free. The process for which the HVAC system was installed was directly related to the roofing contractor's responsibility for installing the unit stand and installing roof counter-flashing so that once the roof was in place, it would be leak free. Air Flow Mechanical provided the roofer with the Manufacturer provided roof stand for the HVAC unit being installed. The roofing contractor performed all necessary installation, water proofing, and roofing overlayment to the elbow and unit stand prior to Air Flow Mechanical returning to install the HVAC unit. All flashing and waterproofing was covered by the new roof that was installed by the roofing contractor. Air Flow Mechanical had no part in the installation, waterproofing, or counter-flashing of the roof or components installed on or under the roofThe contract that the claimant signed specifically listed Exclusions to the scope of work Air Flow Mechanical would be responsible for. These Exclusions were put in place primarily because there was a roofing contractor involved in the installation of components related to the installation of the HVAC system. These Exclusions were put in place because the roofing contractor was responsible for the correct installation and water-proofing of these components as they relate to the roofing system the roofing contractor was installing. These Exclusions include: Repairs Beyond The Scope Of Work, Roof Repairs, Duct Repairs, Hidden and/or Unforeseen Issues.Air Flow Mechanical in no way shape or form contracted with the claimant to provide leak repairs to the existing or new roof system. The roofing contractor hired by the claimant held responsibility for identifying, repairing, and water-proofing all roofing components during the process of installing the new roof system. The roofing contractor in no way shape or form informed Air Flow Mechanical that existing roofing components relating to the HVAC system were the root cause of the leaks. The roofing contractor in no way shape or form informed Air Flow Mechanical that any existing roofing components relating to the HVAC system would need to be repaired, removed, or replaced in order for the new roof system to be leak free. The roofing contractor did inform Air Flow Mechanical that all roof leaks were being resolved through the process of installing the new roof system. Air Flow Mechanical responded to the claimant's phone call about the roof leak by immediately contacting the contractor and setting up a meeting to inspect and assist in resolving any issues that could have caused a roof leak through the installation of the HVAC system. Nothing was found as the inside of the elbow that the claimant insists had holes was completely dry, even after rain showers that occurred just hours before the meeting. Photo's were taken that show the inside of the elbow was leak free and had no evidence of water. This inspection and the photos were taken with the roofing contractor watching. The roofing contractor provided no details stating that any specific component relating to the HVAC system was the issue. The roofing contractor looked at the photo's and inspected the interior of the elbow and agreed that no water was getting through the exposed area of the elbow above the roof deck. I opened up the access panels to the HVAC unit and inspected the interior of the unit. Upon inspection the unit was water tight and had no evidence of water leaks. The roofing contractor performed the same inspection and found the same results. I asked the roofing contractor where the holes were that the claimant insists were in the ducting. The roofing contractor pointed to a few screw holes that had been sealed with a rubber roof sealant. I asked the roofing contractor where the holes were at the electrical panel that the claimant insists existing and he was unable to locate any. I inspected the fused disconnect box that was installed at the unit and it was water tight with no visible signs of moisture or water infiltration. The roofing contractor inspected the fused disconnect box and stated he agreed that there was no way water was getting into that box.Air Flow Mechanical was ready, willing, and able to respond to the claimants request to meet the roofing contractor to inspect the HVAC system installation. Air Flow Mechanical did so without additional cost to the claimant even though it was found that nothing within the scope of work performed by Air Flow Mechanical was the root cause of any ongoing water leak. The conversation between Air Flow Mechanical and the roofing contractor on 11/was that the roofing contractor was going to perform a sealing of the elbow and tie that sealant into his caulking bead along the bottom of the elbow. He chose to complete this repair because under the conditions of the contract, Air Flow Mechanical was not responsible for leaks caused by existing components related to the roof system. The roofing contractor asked how much it would take to replace the elbow and I explained what would need to be done and an estimated cost. I reminded the roofing contractor that the inside of the elbow was dry and had no visible signs of water despite the recent rains and that I did not think that would resolve the leak. I stated that if anything was leaking on the elbow, it would be under the new roof system and it would be the flashing around the base of the elbow that was attached to the old roof that was left in place. The roofing contractor considered that but ruled it out as he was confident that his bead of caulking would stop any water from getting below the new roof system. At the end of the meeting, the roofing contractor was going to discuss the options with the claimant and perform the necessary repairs based on her decision. Air Flow Mechanical was not contacted to be a part of this conversation nor was Air Flow Mechanical given the opportunity to review, inspect, or counter any 3rd party assessment or repairs. The claimant is legally required to allow the installing contractor the opportunity to inspect, review, or counter any assessment, repair, or scope of work by another contractor prior to commencement of work. The claimant refused to provide Air Flow Mechanical that opportunity. The scope of work the claimant states she had done is only a version of several installation options that could have been completed under the same HVAC system replacement. The scope of work is not the "correct way" or the only installation method available. If the claimant and/or the roofing contractor stipulated that they wanted the roof elbow to be deleted and have the unit sit over the supply/return plenums, that installation method could have been completed at an extra cost to the claimant. Since that request was not made, and since the roofing contractor made it clear that he had identified and resolved all roof leaks, the information provided to Air Flow Mechanical did not require that extra scope of work to be completed. Since Air Flow Mechanical is not in the business of selling customers repairs they do not need, we performed the necessary scope of work to properly replace the HVAC system based on the information provided by the onsite contractor. If the contractor gave incorrect misinformation or performed roof repairs that did not resolve the preexisting roof leaks, the contractor is responsible for making that right, not the sub-contractor who had nothing to do with repairing and installing the new roof. Air Flow Mechanical stood ready willing and able to assist the claimant in resolving this issue and did so when called upon. The claimant chose to stop communications with Air Flow Mechanical and choose several other avenues of repair which had nothing in common with the existing scope of work Air Flow Mechanical contracted. Now the claimant wants to blame Air Flow Mechanical for failures resulting in the installation of her new roof which have nothing to do with the scope of work Air Flow Mechanical contracted. Air Flow Mechanical strongly refutes any responsibility in the roof leaks the claimant suffered before and after the installation of her new roof system. Air Flow Mechanical strongly refutes that the existing elbow that is a component of the roof system the roofing contractor was contracted to make water tight was the responsibility of Air Flow Mechanical. Air Flow Mechanical strongly opposes the decision of the claimant to refuse to allow Air Flow Mechanical any opportunity to review, respond to, or offer accommodations to the claimant based on 3rd party opinions and scope of work
I was contacted by contractor who was installing a new roof to give a quote to remove and dispose of existing roof top unit and install a new split system. I provided details on the extensive amount of work it would take to install a split system on the house and that it would be more cost
effective to replace the existing system with a similar style unit. I offered a SEER option for the split system and an alternate option with a "like for like" package unit. The customer elected to go with the cheaper "like for like" system. The existing unit and curb was removed, a new unit curb was provided that is a matched curb for the unit that would be installed. The unit curb and the unit was purchased from Geary Pacific which is a Goodman/Amana Dealer. There is only one curb that is designated for the unit that was installed and that is the curb that was provided. Once the unit curb was set in place for the roofer to perform the necessary modifications and install the new roof, I returned to install the new unit. There were still items remaining that the roofer needed to complete around the roof curb so a tarp was placed back over the area to keep it water tight until they returned to complete their job. The customer called me complaining that the previous leak they had prior to the roof being installed and the system being replaced was still present. I explained that any leaks would be the issue of the roofer and I only replaced her HVAC unit per the terms of the contract we had. The customer insisted that I needed to come look to see where the leak was and figure out how to fix it. I contacted the roofer and we arranged to meet on 11/16/2017. When I arrived, I opened the panel doors to view inside the unit and the supply/return elbow. Both were dry and free of any water leaks. I verified the unit was properly positioned on the matching unit curb and no other issues were present. I looked for "holes" the customer was complaining about and found no evidence of holes or leaks as the inside of the supply/return elbow were dry. The inside of the unit was dry, and there was no evidence the unit was leaking. If the unit had been leaking, it would have leaked inside the duct system and not in the pre-existing leak spot prior to replacing the system. I discussed the options with the roofer and he indicated that the customer refused to believe the leaks were not coming from the HVAC unit. He said the customer did not care for me and would not let go of the idea that it absolutely had to be my fault in some way. He asked me if we could tear off the existing supply/return plenum and replace it with a new one. I showed him the photos of the inside of the plenum and that it was completely dry, proving that the leak was not coming from that. I told him it would be a considerable cost to do this and that if she is insisting that the leak is coming from there, why not just seal the outside of it with a roofing product called ***. He agreed that what I suggested would be a reasonable accommodation and he said he would deal with presenting that option to the customer. This complaint is the first I have heard of any additional work being done. The customer indicates that she had another company come out and perform this work which voids all warranties provided by Air Flow Mechanical. The customer did not give Air Flow Mechanical the opportunity to review the reports or claims from the other company, the customer did not inform Air Flow Mechanical of any purposed changes to the system, and the customer did not give Air Flow Mechanical the opportunity to refute or offer any form of response to the findings of another company.With a new roof being installed, it would be the responsibility of the roofer to determine the cause of any leak. The roofer made no such reports back to Air Flow Mechanical and at this point, Air Flow Mechanical is confident that the HVAC install was not the cause of any roof leaks.Attached are the photos of the area the customer claims was leaking showing those areas completely dry and free of water. This photo's were taken during the meeting with the roofer on 11/16/2017.As for the customer's claim that there is money owed for the SEER rating, it was explained to the customer that there was no option for a SEER package unit, that option was for the split system that the customer did not choose. After multiple times trying to explain this to the customer, it was decided to provide a refund to the customer for the price difference between the split system option and the package unit option. This refund was sent to the customer and the customer accepted the refund
I am rejecting this response because:I did not need a new unit - the old system was working. the problem was that from the South East corner of the system water was coming into my attic through the electrical box / elbow duct into the ceiling of the house, wall and floor. I only elected to replace the unit and roof curb was so that all repairs could be made that were necessary to fix the problemAir Flow recently told the roofer at the last visit to the house on 11/14 that he has never replaced a elbow in the last 50 units he has replaced. well that was exactly my problem. the elbow had 21 holes and the electrical box had 8 holes which allowed water into my home destroying the ceiling, sheet rock, floor and mold and mildew.The manufacturer provided a 2nd roof curb that alleviated the elbow completelyI am asking for $3,000 reimbursement this does not cover the cost to the damages to the interior of my home
I am rejecting this response because:I did not need a new unit - the old system was working the problem was that from the South East corner of the system water was coming into my attic through the electrical box / elbow duct into the ceiling of the house, wall and floor I only elected to replace the unit and roof curb was so that all repairs could be made that were necessary to fix the problemAir Flow recently told the roofer at the last visit to the house on 11/that he has never replaced a elbow in the last units he has replaced well that was exactly my problemthe elbow had holes and the electrical box had holes which allowed water into my home destroying the ceiling, sheet rock, floor and mold and mildew.The manufacturer provided a 2nd roof curb that alleviated the elbow completelyI am asking for $3,reimbursement this does not cover the cost to the damages to the interior of my home
I am rejecting this response because: Air Flow Mechanical is not telling the truth The Roofer is going to contact Revdex.com and confirm my report
I am rejecting the claimants response for the following reasons.I was contacted by the contractor that was replacing the roof and asked to provide a quote to replace the system. I was not given specific details on the condition or operational status of the existing system. The contractor that was replacing the roof indicated to me that the existing roof leak was being resolved through the installation of the new roof. The contractor that was replacing the roof was there to do so in order to resolve any and all roof leaks and was contracted to do so before I was contacted to provide a quote to replace the HVAC unit. I was in no way shape or form contracted to resolve any roof leaks or perform repairs on any existing components that could result in a roof leak. The contractor hired to resolve the roof leaks and install a new roof would have been responsible for identifying the leaks, taking proper steps to resolve the issue, then installing the new roof system so that the finished product was leak free. The process for which the HVAC system was installed was directly related to the roofing contractor's responsibility for installing the unit stand and installing roof counter-flashing so that once the roof was in place, it would be leak free. Air Flow Mechanical provided the roofer with the Manufacturer provided roof stand for the HVAC unit being installed. The roofing contractor performed all necessary installation, water proofing, and roofing overlayment to the elbow and unit stand prior to Air Flow Mechanical returning to install the HVAC unit. All flashing and waterproofing was covered by the new roof that was installed by the roofing contractor. Air Flow Mechanical had no part in the installation, waterproofing, or counter-flashing of the roof or components installed on or under the roofThe contract that the claimant signed specifically listed Exclusions to the scope of work Air Flow Mechanical would be responsible for. These Exclusions were put in place primarily because there was a roofing contractor involved in the installation of components related to the installation of the HVAC system. These Exclusions were put in place because the roofing contractor was responsible for the correct installation and water-proofing of these components as they relate to the roofing system the roofing contractor was installing. These Exclusions include: Repairs Beyond The Scope Of Work, Roof Repairs, Duct Repairs, Hidden and/or Unforeseen Issues.Air Flow Mechanical in no way shape or form contracted with the claimant to provide leak repairs to the existing or new roof system. The roofing contractor hired by the claimant held responsibility for identifying, repairing, and water-proofing all roofing components during the process of installing the new roof system. The roofing contractor in no way shape or form informed Air Flow Mechanical that existing roofing components relating to the HVAC system were the root cause of the leaks. The roofing contractor in no way shape or form informed Air Flow Mechanical that any existing roofing components relating to the HVAC system would need to be repaired, removed, or replaced in order for the new roof system to be leak free. The roofing contractor did inform Air Flow Mechanical that all roof leaks were being resolved through the process of installing the new roof system. Air Flow Mechanical responded to the claimant's phone call about the roof leak by immediately contacting the contractor and setting up a meeting to inspect and assist in resolving any issues that could have caused a roof leak through the installation of the HVAC system. Nothing was found as the inside of the elbow that the claimant insists had holes was completely dry, even after rain showers that occurred just hours before the meeting. Photo's were taken that show the inside of the elbow was leak free and had no evidence of water. This inspection and the photos were taken with the roofing contractor watching. The roofing contractor provided no details stating that any specific component relating to the HVAC system was the issue. The roofing contractor looked at the photo's and inspected the interior of the elbow and agreed that no water was getting through the exposed area of the elbow above the roof deck. I opened up the access panels to the HVAC unit and inspected the interior of the unit. Upon inspection the unit was water tight and had no evidence of water leaks. The roofing contractor performed the same inspection and found the same results. I asked the roofing contractor where the holes were that the claimant insists were in the ducting. The roofing contractor pointed to a few screw holes that had been sealed with a rubber roof sealant. I asked the roofing contractor where the holes were at the electrical panel that the claimant insists existing and he was unable to locate any. I inspected the fused disconnect box that was installed at the unit and it was water tight with no visible signs of moisture or water infiltration. The roofing contractor inspected the fused disconnect box and stated he agreed that there was no way water was getting into that box.Air Flow Mechanical was ready, willing, and able to respond to the claimants request to meet the roofing contractor to inspect the HVAC system installation. Air Flow Mechanical did so without additional cost to the claimant even though it was found that nothing within the scope of work performed by Air Flow Mechanical was the root cause of any ongoing water leak. The conversation between Air Flow Mechanical and the roofing contractor on 11/was that the roofing contractor was going to perform a sealing of the elbow and tie that sealant into his caulking bead along the bottom of the elbow. He chose to complete this repair because under the conditions of the contract, Air Flow Mechanical was not responsible for leaks caused by existing components related to the roof system. The roofing contractor asked how much it would take to replace the elbow and I explained what would need to be done and an estimated cost. I reminded the roofing contractor that the inside of the elbow was dry and had no visible signs of water despite the recent rains and that I did not think that would resolve the leak. I stated that if anything was leaking on the elbow, it would be under the new roof system and it would be the flashing around the base of the elbow that was attached to the old roof that was left in place. The roofing contractor considered that but ruled it out as he was confident that his bead of caulking would stop any water from getting below the new roof system. At the end of the meeting, the roofing contractor was going to discuss the options with the claimant and perform the necessary repairs based on her decision. Air Flow Mechanical was not contacted to be a part of this conversation nor was Air Flow Mechanical given the opportunity to review, inspect, or counter any 3rd party assessment or repairs. The claimant is legally required to allow the installing contractor the opportunity to inspect, review, or counter any assessment, repair, or scope of work by another contractor prior to commencement of work. The claimant refused to provide Air Flow Mechanical that opportunity. The scope of work the claimant states she had done is only a version of several installation options that could have been completed under the same HVAC system replacement. The scope of work is not the "correct way" or the only installation method available. If the claimant and/or the roofing contractor stipulated that they wanted the roof elbow to be deleted and have the unit sit over the supply/return plenums, that installation method could have been completed at an extra cost to the claimant. Since that request was not made, and since the roofing contractor made it clear that he had identified and resolved all roof leaks, the information provided to Air Flow Mechanical did not require that extra scope of work to be completed. Since Air Flow Mechanical is not in the business of selling customers repairs they do not need, we performed the necessary scope of work to properly replace the HVAC system based on the information provided by the onsite contractor. If the contractor gave incorrect misinformation or performed roof repairs that did not resolve the preexisting roof leaks, the contractor is responsible for making that right, not the sub-contractor who had nothing to do with repairing and installing the new roof. Air Flow Mechanical stood ready willing and able to assist the claimant in resolving this issue and did so when called upon. The claimant chose to stop communications with Air Flow Mechanical and choose several other avenues of repair which had nothing in common with the existing scope of work Air Flow Mechanical contracted. Now the claimant wants to blame Air Flow Mechanical for failures resulting in the installation of her new roof which have nothing to do with the scope of work Air Flow Mechanical contracted. Air Flow Mechanical strongly refutes any responsibility in the roof leaks the claimant suffered before and after the installation of her new roof system. Air Flow Mechanical strongly refutes that the existing elbow that is a component of the roof system the roofing contractor was contracted to make water tight was the responsibility of Air Flow Mechanical. Air Flow Mechanical strongly opposes the decision of the claimant to refuse to allow Air Flow Mechanical any opportunity to review, respond to, or offer accommodations to the claimant based on 3rd party opinions and scope of work
I was contacted by contractor who was installing a new roof to give a quote to remove and dispose of existing roof top unit and install a new split system. I provided details on the extensive amount of work it would take to install a split system on the house and that it would be more cost
effective to replace the existing system with a similar style unit. I offered a SEER option for the split system and an alternate option with a "like for like" package unit. The customer elected to go with the cheaper "like for like" system. The existing unit and curb was removed, a new unit curb was provided that is a matched curb for the unit that would be installed. The unit curb and the unit was purchased from Geary Pacific which is a Goodman/Amana Dealer. There is only one curb that is designated for the unit that was installed and that is the curb that was provided. Once the unit curb was set in place for the roofer to perform the necessary modifications and install the new roof, I returned to install the new unit. There were still items remaining that the roofer needed to complete around the roof curb so a tarp was placed back over the area to keep it water tight until they returned to complete their job. The customer called me complaining that the previous leak they had prior to the roof being installed and the system being replaced was still present. I explained that any leaks would be the issue of the roofer and I only replaced her HVAC unit per the terms of the contract we had. The customer insisted that I needed to come look to see where the leak was and figure out how to fix it. I contacted the roofer and we arranged to meet on 11/16/2017. When I arrived, I opened the panel doors to view inside the unit and the supply/return elbow. Both were dry and free of any water leaks. I verified the unit was properly positioned on the matching unit curb and no other issues were present. I looked for "holes" the customer was complaining about and found no evidence of holes or leaks as the inside of the supply/return elbow were dry. The inside of the unit was dry, and there was no evidence the unit was leaking. If the unit had been leaking, it would have leaked inside the duct system and not in the pre-existing leak spot prior to replacing the system. I discussed the options with the roofer and he indicated that the customer refused to believe the leaks were not coming from the HVAC unit. He said the customer did not care for me and would not let go of the idea that it absolutely had to be my fault in some way. He asked me if we could tear off the existing supply/return plenum and replace it with a new one. I showed him the photos of the inside of the plenum and that it was completely dry, proving that the leak was not coming from that. I told him it would be a considerable cost to do this and that if she is insisting that the leak is coming from there, why not just seal the outside of it with a roofing product called ***. He agreed that what I suggested would be a reasonable accommodation and he said he would deal with presenting that option to the customer. This complaint is the first I have heard of any additional work being done. The customer indicates that she had another company come out and perform this work which voids all warranties provided by Air Flow Mechanical. The customer did not give Air Flow Mechanical the opportunity to review the reports or claims from the other company, the customer did not inform Air Flow Mechanical of any purposed changes to the system, and the customer did not give Air Flow Mechanical the opportunity to refute or offer any form of response to the findings of another company.With a new roof being installed, it would be the responsibility of the roofer to determine the cause of any leak. The roofer made no such reports back to Air Flow Mechanical and at this point, Air Flow Mechanical is confident that the HVAC install was not the cause of any roof leaks.Attached are the photos of the area the customer claims was leaking showing those areas completely dry and free of water. This photo's were taken during the meeting with the roofer on 11/16/2017.As for the customer's claim that there is money owed for the SEER rating, it was explained to the customer that there was no option for a SEER package unit, that option was for the split system that the customer did not choose. After multiple times trying to explain this to the customer, it was decided to provide a refund to the customer for the price difference between the split system option and the package unit option. This refund was sent to the customer and the customer accepted the refund
I am rejecting this response because:I did not need a new unit - the old system was working. the problem was that from the South East corner of the system water was coming into my attic through the electrical box / elbow duct into the ceiling of the house, wall and floor. I only elected to replace the unit and roof curb was so that all repairs could be made that were necessary to fix the problemAir Flow recently told the roofer at the last visit to the house on 11/14 that he has never replaced a elbow in the last 50 units he has replaced. well that was exactly my problem. the elbow had 21 holes and the electrical box had 8 holes which allowed water into my home destroying the ceiling, sheet rock, floor and mold and mildew.The manufacturer provided a 2nd roof curb that alleviated the elbow completelyI am asking for $3,000 reimbursement this does not cover the cost to the damages to the interior of my home
I am rejecting this response because: Air Flow Mechanical is not telling the truth. The Roofer is going to contact Revdex.com and confirm my report.