Park Place Rolls-Royce Bentley Maserati

Mr [redacted] purchased from [redacted] what is called a roof tune up for $dollars My company does not get any of the $dollars In the roof tune up package, it is to caulk and seal pipejacks Once we got on the roof, we showed Mr [redacted] the images we took clearly showing the issue was not pipejacks needing to be caulked but he had hail damage Mr [redacted] then decided to file a claim for hail damage Unforntantly, Mr [redacted] is not a member of [redacted] so [redacted] will not refund his $dollars But, my company met with the insurance adjusters for Mr [redacted] separate times and got the roof approved for hail damage! So, we were right to not just caulk his pipejacks but to tell him what was really the issue with the roof Mr [redacted] only had a problem once he received the insurance money That's when things went south because he had to pay his deductible Which we told him he would have to do from the beginning My company should be praised for having the knowledge of how insurance companies work and what real damage Mr***'s roof damage was but here we are dealing with this because Mr [redacted] thinks he can make money off the insurance companies check for his new roof

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint Whether the roofing company receives money from [redacted] or not is irrelevantI signed a contract with the company through [redacted] ***The work was not performed and therefore according to any commercial law I am due a refundThe three inspections that were performed can easily be classified as free marketing that should have allowed Perkin's to execute a much large project ( there was no obligation to pay upfront)However they failed to perform the quotation and delayed my project considerablyTheir fault, not mineThe insinuation I was defrauding an insurance company is without basis, is untrue and should be classified as a cheap immoral lie designed to distracted from the core story of poor performance on their side, an example how this company regards customer rights [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards,

RevDex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. The company is clearly committing slander. I demand that the company provide proof that I intended to commit fraud otherwise they have to retract their statement and apologize. Otherwise we will meet in court. At no point in time did I have a discussion to reduce or avoid an insurance deductible.I demand that the company gets back to the core complaint and that is non fulfillment of the contract which is proven in their own words. It doesnt matter if most of their money is eaten up by fees given to [redacted] ***They still have to refund the full $99. Regards, [redacted] ***

The customer purchased a $roof tune up package through *** ***When one of our project managers inspected the roof, he found hail damageMr[Member Name Removed] decided to file an insurance claim for hail damageMy project manager met with the insurance adjuster and subsequently a full roof replacement was approved by Mr[Member Name Removed]'s insurance companyUnfortunately, Mr[Member Name Removed] wanted my company to cover his deductibleBoth my project manager and myself explained that "eating" his deductible is insurance fraud and we would not do thatJust as your doctor or your collision center does not cover your deductible, we don't eitherInsurance companies require contractors to provide invoice of repairs completed as well as documentation that the deductible has been paidSince we will not cover his deductible, Mr[Member Name Removed] has requested a refund of his $*** *** purchaseI have explained to him that Perkins Preferred does not receive any of the $If he wants a refund, he needs to contact *** *** directlyMr[Member Name Removed] told me that *** *** has refused to refund the $because he is not an *** *** memberNow, Mr[Member Name Removed] is requesting that I come back out to his house and install a solar vent for what Mr[Member Name Removed] calls restitution

Mr. [redacted] purchased from [redacted] what is called a roof tune up for $99 dollars.  My company does not get any of the $99 dollars.  In the roof tune up package, it is to caulk and seal 4 pipejacks.  Once we got on the roof, we showed Mr. [redacted] the images we took clearly showing the...

issue was not pipejacks needing to be caulked but he had hail damage.  Mr. [redacted] then decided to file a claim for hail damage.  Unforntantly, Mr. [redacted] is not a member of [redacted] so [redacted] will not refund his $99 dollars.  But, my company met with the insurance adjusters for Mr. [redacted] 3 separate times and got the roof approved for hail damage!  So, we were right to not just caulk his pipejacks but to tell him what was really the issue with the roof.  Mr. [redacted] only had a problem once  he received the insurance money.  That's when things went south because he had to pay his deductible.  Which we told him he would have to do from the beginning.  My company should be praised for having the knowledge of how insurance companies work and what real damage Mr. [redacted]'s roof damage was but here we are dealing with this because Mr. [redacted] thinks he can make money off the insurance companies check for his new roof.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  Whether the roofing company receives money from [redacted] or not is irrelevant. I signed a contract with the company through [redacted]. The work was not performed and therefore according to any commercial law I am due a refund. The three inspections that were performed can easily be classified as free marketing that should have allowed Perkin's to execute a much large project ( there was no obligation to pay upfront). However they failed to perform the quotation and delayed my project considerably. Their fault, not mine. The insinuation I was defrauding an insurance company is without basis, is untrue and should be classified as a cheap immoral lie designed to distracted from the core story of poor performance on their side, an example how this company regards customer rights.  [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  
The company is clearly committing slander. I demand that the company provide proof that I intended to commit fraud otherwise they have to retract their statement and apologize. Otherwise we will meet in court. At no point in time did I have a discussion to reduce or avoid an insurance deductible.I demand that the company gets back to the core complaint and that is non fulfillment of the contract which is proven in their own words. It doesnt matter if most of their money is eaten up by fees given to [redacted]They still have to refund the full $99.
Regards,
[redacted]