Puma Construction & Restoration Company

I am rejecting this response because:  the response does not address the issues raised.  (1) The problem was incorrectly diagnosed by Puma.  The skylight was caulked, but not where the flashing/frame of the skylight joins the roof or the frame of the skylight itself as he indicates in his response.  The leak was where the plastic dome of the skylight joined the frame and that is where the leak was and was caulked.  (2) I still don't understand why the bill was not presented until 16 months had elapsed.

Dear [redacted]   This email is in regards to the complaint submitted on 5/5/17, ID # [redacted]   We were contacted by the insurance company to provide an inspection of the roof, provide a written cause report  with photos as well as cover the affected area with plastic. Attached is the...

report, billing for the roof cover and photos of the affected area. As stated in the report and as you can see in the photos, the roof and sky light had areas that could have attributed to the leak. If caulking was used to repair the metal flashing that is not a permanent repair and the area will leak again.   We billed for the services rendered and feel we should be paid for the services provided. I have attached the photos, report  and bill for your review.   Thank you, [redacted] Puma Construction Co. Inc. [redacted] fax [redacted]