Mark 1 Restoration Service, Inc.

this is 2 time they helped me. I called to have them move stuff away from my sump so service man can replace it. first day no on came out 2nd day same thing
3rd day sump overflooded again.finnaly got it replaced. yet I got anothe full charge
for the retoration work. I will pay for the first in full but gonna have to make payments on the second. I live on militaty disability. please help me
karl hull 260-489-1349

We have received and reviewed your letter dated 10/20/16 with the response by [redacted] of [redacted] Street, Allentown, PA. 18103 and offer the following response: 1. Mark1 completed the contracted repairs on 04/29/2016 to Ms. [redacted] satisfaction as evidenced by the previously submitted signed Certificate of Satisfaction. 2. We again reiterate that the issues with the customer's roof were caused by clogged gutters and not faulty installation. The roof was installed in November 2015 and it was not until August 2016 that she started experiencing a problem that was caused by standing water on the roof caused by heavy rain and clogged gutters. In addition, Mark1 would address the issues on a warranty basis, however, given that the customer has not paid us the $6,197.37 that was invoiced on 04/29/2016, we cannot proceed with any warranty repairs until we are paid. 3. We trust that this additional information and pictures previously provided are evidence enough that the water on her roof was not caused by a faulty installation and again assert that it was a maintenance issue with her gutters and ask that you dismiss the complaint. Very truly yours Mike S [redacted] Controller Mark 1 Restoration Service, Inc.

We have received and reviewed your letter dated 10/20/with the response by *** *** of *** *** Street, Allentown, PAand offer the following response:Markcompleted the contracted repairs on 04/29/to Ms*** satisfaction as evidenced by the previously submitted signed Certificate of SatisfactionWe again reiterate that the issues with the customer's roof were caused by clogged gutters and not faulty installationThe roof was installed in November and it was not until August that she started experiencing a problem that was caused by standing water on the roof caused by heavy rain and clogged guttersIn addition, Markwould address the issues on a warranty basis, however, given that the customer has not paid us the $6,that was invoiced on 04/29/2016, we cannot proceed with any warranty repairs until we are paidWe trust that this additional information and pictures previously provided are evidence enough that the water on her roof was not caused by a faulty installation and again assert that it was a maintenance issue with her gutters and ask that you dismiss the complaint.Very truly yoursMike S*Controller Mark Restoration Service, Inc

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Mark was hired to replace the roof based on an insurance claim of water leakage
into the houseAfter the job was complete, I continued to experience
water leakage in the same area as the original claim, as well as another
area nearby. Mark
supposedly replaced the entire roof as of April 29, Their claim
that the new water damage is a result of a clogged water gutter is
totally unfounded. If you review the enclosed report from ***
Restoration, dated October 4, 2106, they are of the
opinion that the roof has so many workmanship issues that it cannot be
repaired, but rather a full replacement is requiredTherefore, I do not
agree with the response by Mark
Regards,
*** ***

June 5, 2017Dear *** ***,In response to the complaint ID of ***, submit the following:On Oct***r 10, 2016, Mark Restoration Service, Incwas called out by *** *** Condominium Association to evaluate the extent of water damage sustained at the property owned by *** *** at
*** *** ***, Easton, PA The date of loss was noted as August 4, I had been given the estimate written on September 27, by an Independent Adjuster, *** ***, from *** ***, IncMtFreedom, PA who had written the repair estimate for his client, Community Association Underwriters (CAU), claim managers for *** insurance Corporation (***)Upon my site visit and scope notes, a second site visit was made along with MRRerris to revise his estimate to a more detailed scopeAn Agreement was executed on November 30, with *** *** Condominium Association, for performing the structural repairs to the kitchen cabinetry and repair and refinish the hardwood floor in the amount of $11,129.18,Furthermore, the Agreement above only related to the Condominium Association's responsibilities of the property, *** ***'s homeowner's insurance was responsible for any building upgrade and/or content manipulation required to perform the structural repairs, in *** ***'s Case, *** Inc., was responsible for the prefinished maple hardwood floor, the content manipulation and any claimed, or damaged, ContentUsing the agreed price accepted by ***, a separate Agreement was executed by the ***'s on December 3, in the amount of $3,494.81.Soon after the Agreements were executed, the new cabinetry was ordered and the stain color and finish sheen selection was made for the hardwood floorDuring the week of February 6, the contents were packed out into a POD, the granite counter top was removed and reset the damaged cabinets were removed and replaced, the damaged flooring was removed and replaced and the floor was sanded, stained and refinishedOnce the floor was refinished the ***'s stated the stain was incorrect and should have been darker, even though the floor was stained to their stain selection, To alleviate the anxiety of the ***'s, Mark agreed to again sand, stain and refinish the floor in lieu of removing and resetting the kitchen island, Upon the completion of the floor and cabinetry, the dishwasher feed line leaked and caused minor water damage to the new hardwood floorMark had sent their mitigation team out to dry out the property along with drying out a loveseat and area rug in the Basement below, these items sustained minor wetnessAn inventory was Conducted to inventory of any claimed content the ***'s had incurred including photo frames, kitchen supplies such as aluminum foil and parchment paper, two artificial plants and a glass orbWhile the mitigation team had dried the loveseat and rug, the ***'s would not accept them as restored siting severe allergiesAgain, Mark agreed to pay the ***'s for replacement of the claimed content, including the loveseat and area rugTwo kitchen island drawers were also stored on the basement rug while the work was being performed and did sustain water damage as the bottorns of the drawers swelledMark is having new drawer bottoms remade, The ***'s also stated the new cabinet drawer fronts were not like the original cabinetsWe explained the cabinets are from the same manufacturer by made seven years laterWe exchanged the new cabinet doors with the old cabinet doors, at no chargeThere were some cabinet marks made during the sanding process which were going to be repaired by our cabinet repair subTherewas also masking tape marks on the cabinets left by the ***'s which were also going to be repaired by Mark 1, at no cost to the ***'s.During the week of March 27, 2017, the floor had been sanded, stained and refinished a third time due to the dishwasher leakMark paid to have the ***'s stay in an extended suite, along with the additional pet fee, for a four night duration of the refinishing processOn Thursday, March 30, the contents were packed in and the ***'s were happy the job was nearing completionOn Thursday evening, the ***'s called the Mark Job Super to tell them they were not happy with the floorThe next morning, had gone out to the property along with our Job Super to investigateFrom a standing position the floor looks great, when on your hands and knees, there are exposed hidden wood defects and orbital sander marks where the stain appears darkerTuesday, April 4, the refinishing sub was brought out to evaluate the finished product and explained the floor is to be evaluated at a standing position in natural light for two seconds to accept the end product.Mark attempted to have another vendor come out and provide a second opinion to the acceptance of the end product without success, No one wanted to get in the middle of the projectFinally, on May 30, 2017, a certified wood floor inspector from ** came out to evaluate the product and write a final reportTo date, I have not received his reportFurthermore, another certified inspector is scheduled to make a site visit on Wednesday, June 7, 2017.Mark is trying to complete this job without delay, but the insurance company scope stated to have the floor sanded, stained and refinished but the ***'s now want the floor replaced with a new pre-finished maple floor like they had prior to the loss, We asked the insurance company to assist in the acceptance of the refinished floor, but they consider the claim to be completed as dictated in the claims adjuster's estimate.Respectfully submitted,Glenn S

July 22, 2015Dear *** ***,In response to the letter we received from you regarding ID number ***, we did not perform any work or services for *** ***We received the claim from the insurance company on July 1, and reached out to *** *** immediatelyWe had called
and left a message at 2:51pm for her to call us back to discuss the claimShe called back on July 2, and said that the plumber had not been out yet to fix the problem and she would call us back once the plumbing was repaired, *** *** called us on Monday July 6, and said that everything was repaired by the plumber and that we could now come out to inspectOriginal this was thought to have been an emergency assignment so when the emergency job supervisor called her to set up the appointment she had Stated that there was no emergency services needed and she just needed a repair es***ateWhen we spoke the next day she had said she was off but had plans until 3:30pm that day so if someone could come out after 3:30pm that would work for herUnfortunately there were no estimators available that day to do the site inspectionWhen an estimator called the next day to set up an appointment they scheduled it for Thursday July 9, at 4:30pmWhen *** *** called on Thursday July 9, at 4:40pm she said that *** was supposed to be there at 4:30pm and he was not there yet and wanted to know if he was still comingJaclyn who answered the phone told her that she didn't know what his schedule was but she would reach out to *** to find out what was going onJaclyn called *** at 4:42pm and left him a messageJaclyn called *** back again at 4:49pm and again he did not answer the callJaclyn was trying to speak to *** before calling *** *** so she could give her an answer as to what was going on*** *** called the office back at 4:53pm and when Jaclyn told her that she was unable to reach ***, *** *** said she was very frustrated and pissed off at our company for their lack of response to herJaclyn apologized and said that she understood*** *** said she was going to call her insurance company and the Revdex.com and complain about our service*** was actually pulled to an emergency claim that had come in and forgot to call *** *** to cancel and reschedule the appointment.Thank you,Mark Restoration Service, Inc

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
Mark was hired to replace the roof based on an insurance claim of water leakage
into the houseAfter the job was complete, I continued to experience
water leakage in the same area as the original claim, as well as another
area nearby. Mark
supposedly replaced the entire roof as of April 29, Their claim
that the new water damage is a result of a clogged water gutter is
totally unfounded. If you review the enclosed report from ***
Restoration, dated October 4, 2106, they are of the
opinion that the roof has so many workmanship issues that it cannot be
repaired, but rather a full replacement is requiredTherefore, I do not
agree with the response by Mark
Regards,
*** ***

Dear *** ***,Thank you fur bringing the complaint made by *** *** to my attentionIt is important to me that our customers be satisfied so I am sorry to hear *** *** had a bad experienceI reviewed her complaint and spoke with the Mark employees that handled her jobMy
response to her compliant is below,At Mark Restoration Services, we strive to put people's property back to the way it was prior to the damage happeningIn this case, a storm damaged the roof and siding on a home in Lancaster in Mark repaired the damage to the satisfaction of the homeowner and their insurance CompanyMark warranties our work for weathering, however, in late February, tornado Ike activity occurred in LancasterThe homeowner suffered similar damage as the damage Mark repairedUnfortunately, because the repeated damage was not due to faulty workmanship, but instead due to severe Weather, Mark was notable to cover this damage under the initial insurance claimThe insurance company's adjuster agreed with this since it was a separate and severe weather occurrence.Mark Restoration does have to work closely with the insurance companies and we do stay in direct communication with their adjustersThis is to help maintain valid claims and fair costs of estimatesMark is not in "cahoots" with the insurance company involved in this claim, nor any other insurance companyMark ls simply following the rules of the insurance coverage and the warranty of our work.Thank You,Jannene M

We have received and reviewed your letter dated 11/22/16 with the response by [redacted] and [redacted] at [redacted] Rd., Nazareth, PA 18064 and offer the following response:1. Mark1 completed the contracted repairs to the insured's roof on 11/25/2016.2. There is a small piece of guttering that...

needs to be installed and some painting to a soffit area that we hope to complete by Friday, Dec. 2, 2016 weather permitting.We trust that Mr. & Mrs. [redacted] will remove their complaint upon completion of the two remaining work items.Very truly yours,Mike S[redacted]ControllerMark1 Restoration Service, Inc.

We have received and reviewed the complaint filed with your office by [redacted] of [redacted] Street, Allentown, PA. 18103 and offer the following response:1. Mark1 completed the contracted repairs on 04/29/2016 to Ms. [redacted] satisfaction as evidenced by the attached signed...

Certificate of Satisfaction.2. Per Ms. [redacted] request, Mark1 returned to her property on August 12th 2016 to review her complaint regarding water on her roof. At that time, it was determined by Mark 1's roofer and Project Superintendent that the Water on her roof was being caused by clogged gutters on her lower roof as evidenced by the pictures attached. Mark1 personnel took the necessary steps to unclog the gutters and the water drained off of the roof. Also at that time, our personnel checked for any interior damages and none were found. Attached is a copy of an email from Ms. [redacted] Insurance Adjuster at Liberty Mutual advising that they informed her that any additional water damage was not a warranty issue with the roof and was her responsibility due to the clogged gutters.3. On August 25, 2016, Mark1 received a letter from Ms. [redacted] advising that she was going to pay us but personal/family issues were precluding her from doing so at that time. She requested a credit of $2,000.00 from the $6,197.31 owed and when Mark1 denied her request for the credit, she contacted the Revdex.com.We believe that Ms. [redacted] assertions regarding the issue with her roof were submitted to the Revdex.com in an attempt by her to pressure Mark1 to reduce the balance due for the repairs Completed. We trust that the information and pictures provided are evidence enough that the issue was not with the installation of the roof but a maintenance issue with her gutters and that you will dismiss the complaint.Very truly yoursMike S[redacted]Mark 1 Restoration Service, Inc.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
While the response from Mark 1 addresses some of the issues, it does not address all of them. I reject that the floor looked great from a standing position. It did not as I saw the damage while standing. This was confirmed by the independent floor expert who also stated that from a standing position, you could clearly see the defects from sanding throughout the floor. I want to make sure it is documented that the floor was deemed damaged by the independent flooring expert while evaluating it in natural light from a standing position. As for the natural imperfections, we understand that will be found as you sand, however that was not the original condition of the floor. While natural knots are acceptable, large grooves are not and should be filled and stained so that the floor is not notched in any location, even if it is due to the natural imperfections under the surface of the wood. A second independent flooring expert brought out by Mark 1 also stated it is possible to replace single pieces of wood flooring if the imperfections or damage was un-repairable to an acceptable condition. At this point I imagine Mark 1 has received the official report from 3M stating, as the inspector clearly said that the floor is damaged. With regards to us wanting a new pre-fabricated floor, it is only since the floor has been sanded down multiple times at this point and that defects (grooves and natural notches not darker areas or smoothed knots) are becoming visible. These grooves and notches were left as such which is a far cry from what we had or even natural wood that we would choose. If it is not possible to fill these notches and grooves, then new flooring seems to be the reasonable option at this point. It should also be noted that after the first and even second sanding these notches were not present. If it is possible to fill these areas and stain them so that the surface is even and does not "look" like a cheap filler, then we would be ok with that. The point being is that a new floor was not what was demanded from the onset by us and that we only bring this up after multiple failed attempts at sanding and staining, a process which inherently removes a portion of the floor. As such, a floor can only be sanded a finite number of times before it must be replaced. It is not unreasonable for us to think that we may be at that point given how many times it has been sanded already with a proposal to sand it again.Additionally, I would like to clarify that upon the initial floor stain selection, 3 stain "spots" were provided to choose from based upon the flooring contractor's expert opinion on the original color of the floor. Upon inquiry between 2 of the choices, we were told that they were the same stain although one was distinctly darker than the other. We asked why it was darker and was told that they had simply put more stain down on that spot. We chose the darker of the 2 stains (from the same stain color) since it was the closest match to our original color and if we were to err, we preferred to err on the darker side. The third color was a chocolate brown which was not close at all to our original color at all. We were told we could not enter the house until the floor was completed. When we finally returned and saw the color, it was significantly lighter than our original color (think pale yellow compared to reddish cherry). Mark 1 did agree to re-sand and re-stain the floor, but I want to address the letter which makes it sound as if we randomly decided we did not like a color after all the work was done. They used additional coats of stain on the sample provided but used less when completing the actual floor which would make sense why it turned out much lighter. Also, the money for re-staining the floor after the first color issue, should not have come in lieu of removing and resetting the kitchen island. The insurance company was told that removing the island was a necessity to do the floors properly in the first place. The insurance adjuster agreed and additional funds were to be provided. When the floor was initially done though, the island was never removed despite Mark 1 arguing that it was necessary. At this point this seems unimportant and I only mention this as it was brought up in the Mark 1 response.Next I would like to address the water leak. It was confirmed to us by the workers on site, that same day, that the leak did not come from the dishwasher feeder line but rather the cold water feed line for the sink faucet. We were told the contractor initially working on the granite counter top placed the metal sink upside down directly on the copper cold water line (which was only closed by the turn valve there on the stem and not connected to the faucet. The main water supply to the house was turned on). With the sink upside down, it must have hit the valve and opened it up allowing water to freely flow, hit the upside down sink basin, and drain through the new cabinets and back down onto the hardwood floor and back into the basement. When we inquired how long this was running, we were told by the Mark 1 foreman that there was no way to know but the sink was like that for at least an hour or so and that when he removed the sink basin, the water was "really coming out good." This was not a minor dripping leak that caused a small stain on the floor, but rather a full fledged water damage event that caused the new floors to warp noticeably, damage the bottom of the new cabinet, and damage all the brand new carpet and furniture that was just purchased by our insurance company a couple months prior. Like when the initial incident occurred, we explained our toddler has severe allergies and while they could dry out the furniture and carpet as best as they could, there was no way to confirm dryness in the core of the foam without destroying the sofas. This is in addition to the rusting stains showing through the material. Aside from the furniture, which as stated had stains and not simply returned to their original 2 month old state, the pictures that were referenced were wedding photos. There were other photos damaged as well that my wife went through during a documentation process. We clearly don't care about aluminum foil or parchment paper, but since we relocated many of our decorative and personal belongings to the basement to help Mark 1 with their work, the water damage essentially affected everything that was on that carpet, including the carpet itself as moisture was evident throughout almost all of the carpet. This also further suggests that the leak was not little or minor. And as for the damaged items, important wedding photos are quite valuable to us and rank higher than aluminum foil. Again these were not the only items damaged. As an example there were also wooden decorations that had swelled due to the moisture that was not included in the Mark 1 response letter to the Revdex.com.As Mark 1 stated in their letter, the drawer bottoms were swelled due to moisture from the water leak. While masking tape caused minor peeling on the lower portion of the pantry side panel, this tape could have been removed using Goo-Gone or similar product rather than ripped off. Essentially the panel had to be replaced due to further damage caused by the flooring subcontractor. This flooring work damage extended to other panels including the island and other previously unaffected cabinets.Since the last letter, the Cabinet work has been completed and we find the work acceptable and done well. Damaged panels have been replaced and we are quite happy with the cabinet contractor used. While we discuss the flooring and what will happen with that, outstanding items are:1.  The damaged faucet -  Which needs to be replaced and installed by a licensed plumber. Following the initial incident, we were required to have the faucet installed by a licensed plumber and we had to pay out of pocket for that. We want to ensure that the new faucet is also installed by a person with the proper qualifications and to the same standard the initial plumber had done. Currently, there is minimal water pressure, scratches and dents on the new faucet itself and the handle turn (hot to cold) is drastically off center.2. Replacement of the damaged carpet, furniture and personal items. 3. Repair of upstairs bathroom screen window (part of original scope)4. Repair/Replacement of the 1st floor hardwood floors. (Sub-floor should be investigated from both top and bottom for any warping in the area of the leaks as well prior to installation of any new flooring.) It was also suggested that at each step of the flooring process we be consulted to "sign off" on the work so that any issues can be remedied quicker and easier instead of waiting for everything to be completed before trying to deal with an issue. Additionally with regards to the flooring work, as this has been sanded several times, the molding has been removed and reinstalled several times, adding new scuffs and creating gaps between the floor and doors and other molding. This should be repaired as part of the flooring work as best as possible. Any issues can be brought up during any of the consult stages with us during the flooring work.Progress has been made regarding the cabinet work and when dealing with Dem of Mark 1, we have received much improved responses. Again we would like to assert that we simply want the work done properly and that the damages as reflected in the Mark 1 response letter do not accurately describe the severity of the damages and paint the picture that we are simply being nit picky and difficult. That could not be further from the truth as it would be far easier for us to reside in our own home rather than uproot ourselves over and over again to stay in a hotel, even if it comes at no cost to us. I trust that now that we are dealing with Dem the general manager, that the sense of argument from Mark 1 will stop and that we will continue to make progress towards getting the house and our lives back to normal.
Regards,
[redacted]

We have received and reviewed the complaint filed with your office by [redacted] of [redacted] Street, Allentown, PA. 18103 and offer the following response:
1. Mark1 completed the contracted repairs on 04/29/2016 to Ms. [redacted] satisfaction...

as evidenced by the attached signed Certificate of Satisfaction.2. Per Ms. [redacted] request, Mark1 returned to her property on August 12th 2016 to review her complaint regarding water on her roof. At that time, it was determined by Mark 1's roofer and Project Superintendent that the Water on her roof was being caused by clogged gutters on her lower roof as evidenced by the pictures attached. Mark1 personnel took the necessary steps to unclog the gutters and the water drained off of the roof. Also at that time, our personnel checked for any interior damages and none were found. Attached is a copy of an email from Ms. [redacted] Insurance Adjuster at Liberty Mutual advising that they informed her that any additional water damage was not a warranty issue with the roof and was her responsibility due to the clogged gutters.
3. On August 25, 2016, Mark1 received a letter from Ms. [redacted] advising that she was going to pay us but personal/family issues were precluding her from doing so at that time. She requested a credit of $2,000.00 from the $6,197.31 owed and when Mark1 denied her request for the credit, she contacted the Revdex.com.We believe that Ms. [redacted] assertions regarding the issue with her roof were submitted to the Revdex.com in an attempt by her to pressure Mark1 to reduce the balance due for the repairs Completed. We trust that the information and pictures provided are evidence enough that the issue was not with the installation of the roof but a maintenance issue with her gutters and that you will dismiss the complaint.
Very truly yours
Mike S[redacted]
Mark 1 Restoration Service, 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 us.  My husband states there are just a couple minor things to still be completed.And he has spoken to them about this...The  majority of the job is complete.
Regards,
[redacted] And [redacted]

July 22, 2015
Dear [redacted],In response to the letter we received from you regarding ID number [redacted], we did not perform any work or services for [redacted]. We received the claim from the insurance company on July 1, 2015 and reached out to [redacted]...

immediately. We had called and left a message at 2:51pm for her to call us back to discuss the claim. She called back on July 2, 2015 and said that the plumber had not been out yet to fix the problem and she would call us back once the plumbing was repaired, [redacted] called us on Monday July 6, 2015 and said that everything was repaired by the plumber and that we could now come out to inspect. Original this was thought to have been an emergency assignment so when the emergency job supervisor called her to set up the appointment she had Stated that there was no emergency services needed and she just needed a repair es[redacted]ate. When we spoke the next day she had said she was off but had plans until 3:30pm that day so if someone could come out after 3:30pm that would work for her. Unfortunately there were no estimators available that day to do the site inspection. When an estimator called the next day to set up an appointment they scheduled it for Thursday July 9, 2015 at 4:30pm. When [redacted] called on Thursday July 9, 2015 at 4:40pm she said that [redacted] was supposed to be there at 4:30pm and he was not there yet and wanted to know if he was still coming. Jaclyn who answered the phone told her that she didn't know what his schedule was but she would reach out to [redacted] to find out what was going on. Jaclyn called [redacted] at 4:42pm and left him a message. Jaclyn called [redacted] back again at 4:49pm and again he did not answer the call. Jaclyn was trying to speak to [redacted] before calling [redacted] so she could give her an answer as to what was going on. [redacted] called the office back at 4:53pm and when Jaclyn told her that she was unable to reach [redacted], [redacted] said she was very frustrated and pissed off at our company for their lack of response to her. Jaclyn apologized and said that she understood. [redacted] said she was going to call her insurance company and the Revdex.com and complain about our service. [redacted] was actually pulled to an emergency claim that had come in and forgot to call [redacted] to cancel and reschedule the appointment.Thank you,Mark 1 Restoration Service, Inc.

We have received and reviewed your letter dated 10/20/16 with the response by [redacted] of [redacted] Street, Allentown, PA. 18103 and offer the following response:
1. Mark1 completed the contracted repairs on 04/29/2016 to Ms. [redacted] satisfaction as evidenced by the previously submitted signed Certificate of Satisfaction.
2. We again reiterate that the issues with the customer's roof were caused by clogged gutters and not faulty installation. The roof was installed in November 2015 and it was not until August 2016 that she started experiencing a problem that was caused by standing water on the roof caused by heavy rain and clogged gutters. In addition, Mark1 would address the issues on a warranty basis, however, given that the customer has not paid us the $6,197.37 that was invoiced on 04/29/2016, we cannot proceed with any warranty repairs until we are paid.
3. We trust that this additional information and pictures previously provided are evidence enough that the water on her roof was not caused by a faulty installation and again assert that it was a maintenance issue with her gutters and ask that you dismiss the complaint.
Very truly yours
Mike S[redacted]
Controller Mark 1 Restoration Service, Inc.

Same issues here: they state in their agreement that I am to review and sign at each stage of work for approval - never done. They left work unfinished, nails sticking out between trim and the wall? chipped my wall and trim damaged when taking off, put back on with huge gaps and unfinished. Replaced a wood trim at front door with white rubber? Horrible customer service and then they want full payment? 10 months later when job was to be complete in 3 weeks? Floor squeaks and only way to fix would be to rip it all up again. Right. Beware of Mark 1 Restoration. They don't stand by their work and they add on whatever they can to meet insurance payments. Shady and poor quality work.

Review: Mark 1 was contracted to repair my roof. The signed agreement stated there would be no sub contractors on the project. However several incompetent workers did the roof. Nails were pertruding through the front and side door tops. The shingles were not even cut on the side of the home. The siding paint was chipped from their ladder leaning against my house.Paint was chipped wherever ladders were set up. Mark 1 did some minor repairs when contacted. While the work was being done no supervisor came to inspect. I paid $2000 for the shabby job. They now sent an invoice for balance but have not addressed the issues I presented. I do have pictures to post if needed. Thank YouDesired Settlement: I do not think any balance should be paid. I would like the $2000 I already paid to Mark 1 be sufficient. I now need to hire a company to paint my house due to the damage done by Mark 1 and that will be costly for me.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates that the business has not responded to you directly. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

At this time, I have not been contacted by Mark 1 Restoration Service regarding complaint ID [redacted].

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

Hello,

I received the message you received from Mark 1 Restoration Services on Saturday February 15th.

Thank you for forwarding it to me.

Mark 1's **. [redacted]'s documentation contains many fallacies and contradicts the service agreement that I signed with Mark 1 on 4-08-2013. I can submit that to Revdex.com if necessary and also before and after pictures of my home.

I was never notified of a sub contractor. There was no expedition of the required repairs to my roof. I signed a contract with Mark 1 on 4/08/2013 and work on my roof did not begin til May. The wind damage to my roof was reported to USAA, my insurance company, in October 2012.

The service contract states that I was to sign a certificate of satisfaction after each stage of work. Never was that done.

**. [redacted] states he was here throughout the course of the project on site at several different times, if that were true, then there would have been no need for repairs.

Thank you for your time and attention to this complaint.

Sincerely,