Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/19) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted]/President
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@plutaconstruction.com
July 2014: [redacted] Construction has completed all roofing work. According to the contract signed by the homeowner, final...
payment must be paid upon receipt of manufactures warranty.
September 2014:
Pluta Construction emailed a copy of manufacturer's warranty to owner and requested that final payment be made. Up until this point, only two partial payments have been made.
September 2014:
Pluta Construction receives a call about a leak from the homeowner. We respond immediately and dispatch a roofer to investigate. Upon investigating, our installers found water underneath the newly installed insulation and TPO roofing membrane. The damage to the roofing membrane and insulation was deemed irreparable and needed to be replaced.
September 18, 2014:
Pluta Construction returns to repair water damaged, replaced insulation and TPO roofing membrane.
September to December 2014:
Following the extensive repairs, the homeowner continually reported water leaks that they theorized stemmed from the flat roof. Pluta Construction was unable to validate this and requested a re-inspection of the roof and materials by an independent certified roofing inspector. Representatives of Pluta Construction and the roof inspectors continued to investigate the claimed leaks and visited the property a total of 10 times during the aforementioned period.
Several tests were done by Pluta Construction while the inspectors were present that included water testing with a garden hose as well as a thermo graphic infrared inspection of the roof to detect moisture. Both tests came up false. The inspectors validated that the roofing material was not faulty and that the installation was correctly done. Both Pluta Construction and the inspectors agreed that the leaks were originating from an area of the home other then the flat roof replaced by Pluta Construction.
The northern and southern portions of the home contain a high-pitched shingled roof that is showing significant age and must be replaced. This shingled roof is potentially the source of leaks the homeowner is reporting. This roof was not part of our original contract and was never evaluated per the request of the homeowner. Around the time Pluta Construction was contracted to replace the aging flat roof, the homeowners renovated extensive interior portions of the northern end of the home due to mold and water damage. We have offered to evaluate this roof for an additional fee, especially after the ongoing leaks were reported, but were not authorized to do so by the homeowner.
December 2014 to April 2015:
The time following the last inspection, which occurred on December 14, 2014, was when the greater Chicago land area experienced one of the worst winters in recorded history. During this time we received no communication from the homeowner.
Conclusion:
Pluta Construction has shown good faith in wanting to resolve this amicably. Upon deeming that the flat roof was not the source of the leaks Pluta Construction demanded final payment as per our contract. The homeowner has refused to pay the final amount. In addition, the homeowners have resorted to verbal and personal attacks on several occasions and also forced Pluta Construction employees to vacate the property. Our mailing address is XXXXX W. [redacted] Road, Suite [redacted] This is a commercial mailing address that is unrelated to Five Guys restaurant, which is a tenant across the street. If the homeowner has, as they claim, been to this location they would be able to clearly see this.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/19) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted]/President
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@plutaconstruction.com
July 2014: [redacted] Construction has completed all roofing work. According to the contract signed by the homeowner, final...
payment must be paid upon receipt of manufactures warranty.
September 2014:
Pluta Construction emailed a copy of manufacturer's warranty to owner and requested that final payment be made. Up until this point, only two partial payments have been made.
September 2014:
Pluta Construction receives a call about a leak from the homeowner. We respond immediately and dispatch a roofer to investigate. Upon investigating, our installers found water underneath the newly installed insulation and TPO roofing membrane. The damage to the roofing membrane and insulation was deemed irreparable and needed to be replaced.
September 18, 2014:
Pluta Construction returns to repair water damaged, replaced insulation and TPO roofing membrane.
September to December 2014:
Following the extensive repairs, the homeowner continually reported water leaks that they theorized stemmed from the flat roof. Pluta Construction was unable to validate this and requested a re-inspection of the roof and materials by an independent certified roofing inspector. Representatives of Pluta Construction and the roof inspectors continued to investigate the claimed leaks and visited the property a total of 10 times during the aforementioned period.
Several tests were done by Pluta Construction while the inspectors were present that included water testing with a garden hose as well as a thermo graphic infrared inspection of the roof to detect moisture. Both tests came up false. The inspectors validated that the roofing material was not faulty and that the installation was correctly done. Both Pluta Construction and the inspectors agreed that the leaks were originating from an area of the home other then the flat roof replaced by Pluta Construction.
The northern and southern portions of the home contain a high-pitched shingled roof that is showing significant age and must be replaced. This shingled roof is potentially the source of leaks the homeowner is reporting. This roof was not part of our original contract and was never evaluated per the request of the homeowner. Around the time Pluta Construction was contracted to replace the aging flat roof, the homeowners renovated extensive interior portions of the northern end of the home due to mold and water damage. We have offered to evaluate this roof for an additional fee, especially after the ongoing leaks were reported, but were not authorized to do so by the homeowner.
December 2014 to April 2015:
The time following the last inspection, which occurred on December 14, 2014, was when the greater Chicago land area experienced one of the worst winters in recorded history. During this time we received no communication from the homeowner.
Conclusion:
Pluta Construction has shown good faith in wanting to resolve this amicably. Upon deeming that the flat roof was not the source of the leaks Pluta Construction demanded final payment as per our contract. The homeowner has refused to pay the final amount. In addition, the homeowners have resorted to verbal and personal attacks on several occasions and also forced Pluta Construction employees to vacate the property. Our mailing address is XXXXX W. [redacted] Road, Suite [redacted] This is a commercial mailing address that is unrelated to Five Guys restaurant, which is a tenant across the street. If the homeowner has, as they claim, been to this location they would be able to clearly see this.