Metropolitan Construction Services

Metropolitan Construction Services has closed and is no longer in business

Metro Roof closed its doors and is no longer in business

Copy og warranty is attached

This business has closed and is no longer in operation

This company has closed down and is out of business.

Metropolitan Construction Services has closed and is no longer in business.

Review: We purchased our home in November 2012 in Washington, DC After the a storm that occurred during closing (Sandy), the sellers identified leaking in the roof. Metro Construction said that a full new roof would be required. The roof was guaranteed by warranty, and that warranty was transferred to me and my wife at closing. Metro Construction finished one day after closing (despite promising to complete it one day before closing). We identified leaks after the first storm in December. In addition, there were cracks around the interior skylight that were not there prior to the roof work. Metro sent people to perform the repairs a few days after we called. The following occurred:

1. Workers went onto our roof and let themselves into our backyard (by opening our large gate) without notifying us. This was a huge liability, and everyone is fortunate our dog was inside.

2. None of the roof workers spoke English or could explain what was being performed.

3. The drywall and paint workers did not identify issues and could not match our paint. This was due to the discoloration that occurred when our bedroom ceiling leaked through our fan.

4. When my wife called Metro that day for an explanation, the worker said that he would need to speak to his installation manager about the work and would get back to us in a week.

5. We called Metro four days later and the worker explained that screws just needed to be tightened.

The roof proceeded to leak even worse during the next storm, and wind was getting through the skylight to the point of being loud. We had to hire another roofing company to fix Metro's work. The other company, [redacted], said that the entire roof was installed incorrectly.

We have been trying to speak to Metro Construction about these issues for the past 5 months through an attorney without success. [redacted] documented the issues with photos, and we have maintained a timeline of events and issues that we can supply.

Below is the letter that was sent to Metro Construction on May 3, 2013:

RE: Warranty Issue at [redacted] NW, Washington, DC

Dear [redacted]:

Our law firm has been retained by [redacted] and [redacted] regarding work your company, Metropolitan Construction Services (hereinafter “MCS”), performed on their home located at [redacted] Washington, DC [redacted] (“hereinafter “House”). The work that MCS performed on the House was substandard, and per the terms agreed upon by MCS and my client, he is entitled to compensation for the repairs made to address this poor work.

The roof repairs were completed by MCS on November 30, 2012, and included removing and replacing portions of the roof, installing insulation, and flashing the skylight. With this work came a 10-year manufacturer’s warranty and a lifetime warranty from MCS for the workmanship. See Attachment A.

A November 30, 2012, inspection certificate signed by MCS Manager [redacted] acknowledged an inspection of the roof after the work and found that the roof is in “good condition and should be sound for at least 10 years.” See Attachment B. The actual Lifetime Workmanship Warranty (hereinafter “Warranty”) signed by [redacted] on November 30, 2013, is enclosed for your reference as Attachment C.

The Warranty specifically states: the liability to Metropolitan Construction Services shall be limited to the repair of the leak and any work necessary to achieve the leak repair. Metropolitan Construction Services is also responsible for other damage to the house structure or interior finishes and personal property of customer damaged by roof leak.

Since the roof repairs and the inspection, there have been documented problems with the work done by MCS. On December 3, 2012 [redacted] noticed that there was cracking in the dry near the interior of the skylight. On December 26, 2012, there was the first rain since the work on the roof by MCS. This rain produced a leak in the ceiling of the master bedroom (with water leaking around the ceiling light/fan) as well as visible water damage around the skylight. Per the terms of the Warranty, [redacted] gave notice to MCS of the leaks the same day.

On December 28, 2012, MCS sent staff to inspect the roof per the request of [redacted]. Your staff entered the property unannounced through the backyard, walk around the roof, and leave without explaining what they found to [redacted] or [redacted]. During this same visit, MCS sent a dry wall expert who stated that the damage around the ceiling fan/light was fine. The dry wall expert and a painter also addressed some of the damaged interior area around the skylight. On January 3, 2013, a member of your staff, [redacted], stated in a phone call that the installation manager could not determine what the problem was and that the staff capped some open screws on the roof near the cupola when there on December 28.

With no resolution, [redacted] and Ms. [redacted] continued to experience problems with the roof. On January 5, 2013, loud winds could be heard from inside the house near the poorly sealed skylight. On January 13, 2013, there was rain that caused visible leaks in the same locations in the master bedroom and skylight. On January 14, 2013, the master bedroom’s ceiling light/fan stops working due to water damage and water stains became even more apparent.

Due to MCS’ failure to follow through on the terms of the Warranty, [redacted] had an independent inspection performed by [redacted], LLC (hereinafter “[redacted]”). [redacted] performed an inspection on January 16, 2013, and in a letter of the same date, outlined numerous problems with MCS’ workmanship, including: improper flashing throughout the roof, improper caulking, sloppy use of cement, failure to use flashing for the skylight, and overall shoddy workmanship. See Attachment D with accompanying photographs. This documentation clearly shows that there were interior leaks caused by a defect in the Roofing system from the improper workmanship performed by MCS. Unable to wait due to upcoming inclement weather (and a general distrust of MCS), [redacted] allowed [redacted] to perform work on the roof to remove the existing roof, replace the roof, repair the loose skylight, repair the flashing deficiencies, and reseal roof penetrations. This work cost [redacted] $4,800. See Attachment E. There is also the interior damage that has to be repaired due to MCS’s poor workmanship that [redacted] estimates will cost $1,100. See Attachment F.

[redacted] correctly addressed the repair of the leak and damage to the interior damage caused by the leak. Therefore, under the Warranty MCS is liable for the $5,900 worth of damage sustained due to the poor workmanship.

We are willing to resolve this situation informally and quickly. Therefore, we ask that you send a check with the $5,900 amount to the law firm’s attention. Upon satisfaction of this amount owed, we will consider the matter concluded.

Please contact me at the information below and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours very truly, [redacted]

PartnerDesired Settlement: We are seeking compensation $4,500 for the damage done to the roof, the leaking in the bedroom caused by the improperly sealed roof, and the months of runaround when we just wanted them to fix their roof. This company would not respond to our attorneys calls or letters -- except for the one when they responded about something that was irrelevant to the issue. If this does not work, we will take this claim to small claims court in DC.

Business

Response:

Metropolitan Construction Services completed the work as specified per invoice 12-10-170B which did not include any work to be performed to the cupola. The roof inspection issued was for the main portion of the roof not including the cupola.

The seller’s decision not to address the issues of the cupola is the cause of the leaks and all the challenges in the customer’s statement. Metropolitan Construction Services recommended work to be performed on the cupola.

Per the proposal from [redacted] and Remodeling, their work was performed on the cupola which was not included in the work performed by Metropolitan Construction Services.

Metropolitan Construction Services completed the work as specified per invoice 12-10-170B. In good customer service practices and in good faith Metropolitan Construction Services performed service work even beyond the scope of the work Metropolitan Construction Services was contracted for. Again had the original client (seller of the house) accepted our offer of having the cupola work performed along with the main roof these challenges could have been averted.

Sincerely,

Metropolitan Construction Services

Business

Response:

Metropolitan Construction Services completed the work as specified per invoice 12-10-170B which did not include any work to be performed to the cupola. The roof inspection issued was for the main portion of the roof not including the cupola.

The seller’s decision not to address the issues of the cupola is the cause of the leaks and all the challenges in the customer’s statement. Metropolitan Construction Services recommended work to be performed on the cupola.

Per the proposal from [redacted] and Remodeling, their work was performed on the cupola which was not included in the work performed by Metropolitan Construction Services.

Metropolitan Construction Services completed the work as specified per invoice 12-10-170B. In good customer service practices and in good faith Metropolitan Construction Services performed service work even beyond the scope of the work Metropolitan Construction Services was contracted for. Again had the original client (seller of the house) accepted our offer of having the cupola work performed along with the main roof these challenges could have been averted.

Sincerely,

Metropolitan Construction Services

Consumer

Response:

[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 Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Metropolitan Construction Services continues to operate in poor faith. They continue to sidestep the source of the cupola issue, while ignoring all together other roof issues resulting from their work. Below we document three separate ways in which MCS is responsible for inadequate and unsafe work. Metropolitan Construction Services’ (MCS) poor work is the direct cause of the bedroom leak around the cupola. Counter to MCS’ statements, the leak into the master bedroom did not come from the cupola itself, but from the points at which the MCS-laid roof was affixed to the cupola. After the Dec. 26 rainstorm, we collected two buckets of water in our bedroom. That day we called MCS to come fix the leak. Roofers arrived on Dec. 28 to attempt repair, yet we discovered the leak was still present during the next rainstorm on January 14. Since we no longer had faith in MCS’ ability to fix the problem, we hired Jason [redacted] of [redacted], who is a structural engineer and experienced roofer. In his examination fo the roof he discovered that MCS did not follow standard roofing practice. Base roof materials should be laid underneath cupola tiles. On our roof, MCS plastered the roofing material on top of the cupola tiles. We have photographs showing that the roofing material was pulling away from the tiles. Additionally, we have photographs showing that MCS cracked the cupola tiles in this process. We have additional photos from our initial home inspection showing no cracks in the cupola tiles.Further, we can demonstrate via our home closing timeline that no leak around the cupola existed prior to MCS’ work. Hurricane Sandy occurred during the middle of our home closing contingency period. The severity of the storm revealed one roof leak along the side of the house where the smaller bedroom and bathroom meet. MCS was called out to fix that leak, which they told the sellers they could not do without putting on an entirely new roof. A storm of such severity as Hurricane Sandy would have produced a leak in the bedroom had there been an existing weakness in the cupola. There was no such leak. The leak created the need for repairs beyond roof work. The leak came straight into the master bedroom through the ceiling light, creating additional costs for us to check and repair 1) attic insulation; 2) electrical wiring; and 3) drywall and painting around the bedroom ceiling. MCS continues to ignore other faulty work, namely the area around the skylight. A leak in this area was not present prior to MCS’ work. When [redacted] inspected the skylight he found he could move it around, revealing multiple points of entry for air, debris, and water. As a result, these openings created significant water damage around the entire area wall below the skylight. Fixing this damage will cost $1,100, according to an estimate we received.MCS acted unprofessionally on multiple occasions, creating security risks for our home. When MCS was originally doing their work, they consistently failed to announce themselves on the premises. They were not given permission to enter our property without our knowledge, yet they continued to enter unannounced through our rear gate by reaching over the high fence to open the latch. Further, the crews consistently left the gate wide open when they departed for the day. MCS’ poor behavior was not limited to their on-site work. Directly after the attempted repair, we left a message for MCS asking for them to identify the source of the leak. We did not get a call back for seven days, at which time [redacted] at MCS said he could not explain what work was done on the roof or whether any issues were identified. He could only say that his “installation manager” considered the “warranty was completed.”