In September of 2014, [redacted] contracted with Dollman Construction, Inc. to complete a roof replacement at her home in [redacted]. A copy of our Proposal with Terms and Conditions (dated: 08/25/2014) is attached. A copy of the Contractor’s Warranty for this project is also...
attached.Timeline:05/23/2016: [redacted] contacted our office by phone to state that she had a leak that she believed was near a skylight in her bathroom. She further stated that the area did not leak unless there was long periods of sustained rain.06/03/2016: (the following Friday after the client’s first request for service). Service was performed on Mrs. [redacted]’s roof in an effort to correct the leak. The men performing the service work were unable to see any sign of leaks or any evident cause of leaks, but sealed all flashing and other seams/connections in the immediate area of where the client said the roof had been leaking….Mrs. [redacted] contacted our office later in the day asking if the spot on her ceiling would be repainted. She was informed that any spot that may be on the ceiling would be addressed as soon as we were certain that the leak had been resolved.06/08/2016: Mrs. [redacted] contacted Dollman Construction, Inc. and requested a meeting with Jimmy Dollman at our offices. Mrs. [redacted] did not state the reason for the meeting during her phone call. A meeting date and time was set that would accommodate both parties.06/13/2016: Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] met with Mr. Dollman at the Dollman office on [redacted] – Roanoke. Mr. Dollman asked if there had been any sign of leaks since the repair, to which, the [redacted]s both stated that there had not been, but it had not rained very much. Mr. Dollman offered to paint the area of the ceiling at that time, but recommended that the spot painting be deferred until verifying that the leak was no longer present. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] agreed with Mr. Dollman’s recommendation and were instructed to call or email him personally at the first sign of a leak.07/31/2016: 07/31 - Forty-Eight days after their meeting with Mr. Dollman, Mrs. [redacted] contacted Mr. Dollman by email to inform him that skylight area of the roof was leaking. A copy of the email is attached.08/03 and 08/04/2016: Mr. Dollman attempted to schedule a time for the repairs. By email, Mr. Dollman offered to send a Project Manager on 08/08/2016 to try to determine the source of the leak, or, if the client preferred, he would call after returning from vacation, during the week of August 15th, to schedule a time to evaluate the roof himself. A copy of the email is attached, but following is a portion of the reply from Mrs. [redacted] (date: 08/04/2016): “….If I had not been in the Bathroom when it was leaking this time I would not have seen it. The water was running from the inside of the skylight into the tub and going down the drain. It was on a different side and there are no water marks on the ceiling on that side. So you can let us know a date in the week of the 15th that you can come. Thank you and will see you then...” 08/19/2016: Mrs. [redacted] was contacted to schedule the site visit by Mr. Dollman. She replied “NO”, and went on to state that she was having the problem taken care of by another contractor. A copy of the email is attached. 08/23/2016: Mrs. [redacted] sent photos to Dollman via email. The email did not include any text or correspondence. 08/24/2016: Mrs. [redacted] sent another email stating that she had another person complete the repairs.08/29/2016: Dollman contacted Mrs. [redacted] to inform her that no further work would be performed by Dollman, because she had an engaged an outside party to worked on the roof. Oct. 2016: Dollman staff had phone conversations on a couple of occasions in an effort to resolve the client’s complaint, but those discussions were not been productive because Dollman refused to pay the amount that was demanded by the client. After reviewing and considering all information at hand, Dollman Construction, Inc. takes the position that the client was provided a level a service that is not only consistent with acceptable business practices, but also with the high level of service and customer care that Dollman Construction, Inc. is known for throughout Southwest and Central Virginia. The management of Dollman Construction, Inc. would like to point out the following items: 1) The Client was contacted quickly in every instance and service was performed or offered promptly.2) The Client has clearly disregarded #19 of the Terms and Conditions of her Proposal (copy attached), which states…”any disputes arising under the Proposal shall be promptly submitted to and heard by and determined by the American Arbitration Association…”. The Client has instead elected to use online directories and review sites to state her opinion and make comments that approach libelous.3) The Client has not complied with the terms of the warranty.4) On May 21st, 2015, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] also hired Dollman Construction to complete another unrelated project for a screened room. A subcontractor that worked on this second project is no longer an approved vendor for our company because it was determined that he was contracting other work directly for Mr. and Mrs. [redacted], a violation of Dollman’s standard subcontractor agreement. This subcontractor was angry about Dollman’s decision to no longer use his services on future projects. This subcontractor is the same person that was hired by the [redacted]s to repair the roof leak and that informed them that it was installed incorrectly.5) Mrs. [redacted]’s email (dated: 08/24/2016) indicates that she has already had the repairs done, but the copy of the invoice that was sent to Dollman Construction, Inc, after our request to Mrs. [redacted] for documentation related to the repair, indicates that the house was worked on twice. The invoice is dated for 10/11/2016 and indicates that work was performed on 08/19 and 09/19. The repair that was allegedly done on 08/19 was termed “flashing repairs”. The work that was allegedly performed a month later includes a work description of “specialties”. Clearly, the invoice has clearly been altered. A copy is attached.6) In online reviews and social media, the [redacted]s have suggested that we took advantage of an elderly veteran. This assertion is absurd. Mr. Dollman is a veteran of the United States Army and considers these accusations to be outlandish. Dollman Construction, Inc. has a proven record of outstanding customer service. This level of service is consistent regardless of age or military service record.7) Dollman has made efforts to resolve this matter by offering the client a payment that is equal to the anticipated cost of the service work, but those efforts are rooted in a desire to keep our clients happy and to stop the negative comments that are being circulated by this client, rather than an acknowledgement that we should have handled this situation differently. The client has refused anything less than the amount that they allegedly paid on the altered invoice.8) Our reputation is important to us, but the desire to avoid negative comments on the internet must be balanced with an expectation that our clients adhere to the terms on which they have agreed to business.
In September of 2014, [redacted] contracted with Dollman Construction, Inc. to complete a roof replacement at her home in [redacted]. A copy of our Proposal with Terms and Conditions (dated: 08/25/2014) is attached. A copy of the Contractor’s Warranty for this project is also...
attached.Timeline:05/23/2016: [redacted] contacted our office by phone to state that she had a leak that she believed was near a skylight in her bathroom. She further stated that the area did not leak unless there was long periods of sustained rain.06/03/2016: (the following Friday after the client’s first request for service). Service was performed on Mrs. [redacted]’s roof in an effort to correct the leak. The men performing the service work were unable to see any sign of leaks or any evident cause of leaks, but sealed all flashing and other seams/connections in the immediate area of where the client said the roof had been leaking….Mrs. [redacted] contacted our office later in the day asking if the spot on her ceiling would be repainted. She was informed that any spot that may be on the ceiling would be addressed as soon as we were certain that the leak had been resolved.06/08/2016: Mrs. [redacted] contacted Dollman Construction, Inc. and requested a meeting with Jimmy Dollman at our offices. Mrs. [redacted] did not state the reason for the meeting during her phone call. A meeting date and time was set that would accommodate both parties.06/13/2016: Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] met with Mr. Dollman at the Dollman office on [redacted] – Roanoke. Mr. Dollman asked if there had been any sign of leaks since the repair, to which, the [redacted]s both stated that there had not been, but it had not rained very much. Mr. Dollman offered to paint the area of the ceiling at that time, but recommended that the spot painting be deferred until verifying that the leak was no longer present. Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] agreed with Mr. Dollman’s recommendation and were instructed to call or email him personally at the first sign of a leak.07/31/2016: 07/31 - Forty-Eight days after their meeting with Mr. Dollman, Mrs. [redacted] contacted Mr. Dollman by email to inform him that skylight area of the roof was leaking. A copy of the email is attached.08/03 and 08/04/2016: Mr. Dollman attempted to schedule a time for the repairs. By email, Mr. Dollman offered to send a Project Manager on 08/08/2016 to try to determine the source of the leak, or, if the client preferred, he would call after returning from vacation, during the week of August 15th, to schedule a time to evaluate the roof himself. A copy of the email is attached, but following is a portion of the reply from Mrs. [redacted] (date: 08/04/2016): “….If I had not been in the Bathroom when it was leaking this time I would not have seen it. The water was running from the inside of the skylight into the tub and going down the drain. It was on a different side and there are no water marks on the ceiling on that side. So you can let us know a date in the week of the 15th that you can come. Thank you and will see you then...” 08/19/2016: Mrs. [redacted] was contacted to schedule the site visit by Mr. Dollman. She replied “NO”, and went on to state that she was having the problem taken care of by another contractor. A copy of the email is attached. 08/23/2016: Mrs. [redacted] sent photos to Dollman via email. The email did not include any text or correspondence. 08/24/2016: Mrs. [redacted] sent another email stating that she had another person complete the repairs.08/29/2016: Dollman contacted Mrs. [redacted] to inform her that no further work would be performed by Dollman, because she had an engaged an outside party to worked on the roof. Oct. 2016: Dollman staff had phone conversations on a couple of occasions in an effort to resolve the client’s complaint, but those discussions were not been productive because Dollman refused to pay the amount that was demanded by the client. After reviewing and considering all information at hand, Dollman Construction, Inc. takes the position that the client was provided a level a service that is not only consistent with acceptable business practices, but also with the high level of service and customer care that Dollman Construction, Inc. is known for throughout Southwest and Central Virginia. The management of Dollman Construction, Inc. would like to point out the following items: 1) The Client was contacted quickly in every instance and service was performed or offered promptly.2) The Client has clearly disregarded #19 of the Terms and Conditions of her Proposal (copy attached), which states…”any disputes arising under the Proposal shall be promptly submitted to and heard by and determined by the American Arbitration Association…”. The Client has instead elected to use online directories and review sites to state her opinion and make comments that approach libelous.3) The Client has not complied with the terms of the warranty.4) On May 21st, 2015, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] also hired Dollman Construction to complete another unrelated project for a screened room. A subcontractor that worked on this second project is no longer an approved vendor for our company because it was determined that he was contracting other work directly for Mr. and Mrs. [redacted], a violation of Dollman’s standard subcontractor agreement. This subcontractor was angry about Dollman’s decision to no longer use his services on future projects. This subcontractor is the same person that was hired by the [redacted]s to repair the roof leak and that informed them that it was installed incorrectly.5) Mrs. [redacted]’s email (dated: 08/24/2016) indicates that she has already had the repairs done, but the copy of the invoice that was sent to Dollman Construction, Inc, after our request to Mrs. [redacted] for documentation related to the repair, indicates that the house was worked on twice. The invoice is dated for 10/11/2016 and indicates that work was performed on 08/19 and 09/19. The repair that was allegedly done on 08/19 was termed “flashing repairs”. The work that was allegedly performed a month later includes a work description of “specialties”. Clearly, the invoice has clearly been altered. A copy is attached.6) In online reviews and social media, the [redacted]s have suggested that we took advantage of an elderly veteran. This assertion is absurd. Mr. Dollman is a veteran of the United States Army and considers these accusations to be outlandish. Dollman Construction, Inc. has a proven record of outstanding customer service. This level of service is consistent regardless of age or military service record.7) Dollman has made efforts to resolve this matter by offering the client a payment that is equal to the anticipated cost of the service work, but those efforts are rooted in a desire to keep our clients happy and to stop the negative comments that are being circulated by this client, rather than an acknowledgement that we should have handled this situation differently. The client has refused anything less than the amount that they allegedly paid on the altered invoice.8) Our reputation is important to us, but the desire to avoid negative comments on the internet must be balanced with an expectation that our clients adhere to the terms on which they have agreed to business.