Please review section c - 2 4th and 5th line standard exclusion we do not repair existing out of plumb or out of level out of level conditions etc. The dip in the roof was present before our work. Fixing the dip was not in our scope of work.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted].
The dip in the roof
was the subject of discussion with Mr. [redacted] at the time of the
job offer. He said he was aware of it; hence the repair cost of
$18,630 with the possibility of a supplemental claim if necessary.
At no time during the discussion before start of the job or after
completion did Mr. [redacted] indicate that repairing the dip in the
roof was outside the scope of the contract. In fact, in the
discussion with Mr. [redacted] regarding the still existent dip in the
roof upon completion of the job, he offered solutions (as stated in
the original complaint) and he agreed to meet with us the following
day, which he never did.
By their own
admission, according to section E – 1, lines 2-4 of the contract,
we should have been notified of the defect before the shingles were
replaced. Instead the new shingles were installed with the dip
remaining.
We would like
RebuildEx to furnish us with a detailed bill, showing dates of start
and completion of the work done which involved removal of three
layers of shingles and replacing with a new layer of shingles on the
roof which covers approximately 1,900 square feet according to their
“Geomni” measurements. In an effort to resolve this dispute we
propose paying the cost for this minus the $6,300 deposit we made.
Regards,
[redacted]
will review Monday August 6th and respond after review. Nothing in this email waives any rights to proceed with any and all legal actions against all parties involved.
Please review section c - 2 4th and 5th line standard exclusion we do not repair existing out of plumb or out of level out of level conditions etc. The dip in the roof was present before our work. Fixing the dip was not in our scope of work.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted].
The dip in the roof
was the subject of discussion with Mr. [redacted] at the time of the
job offer. He said he was aware of it; hence the repair cost of
$18,630 with the possibility of a supplemental claim if necessary.
At no time during the discussion before start of the job or after
completion did Mr. [redacted] indicate that repairing the dip in the
roof was outside the scope of the contract. In fact, in the
discussion with Mr. [redacted] regarding the still existent dip in the
roof upon completion of the job, he offered solutions (as stated in
the original complaint) and he agreed to meet with us the following
day, which he never did.
By their own
admission, according to section E – 1, lines 2-4 of the contract,
we should have been notified of the defect before the shingles were
replaced. Instead the new shingles were installed with the dip
remaining.
We would like
RebuildEx to furnish us with a detailed bill, showing dates of start
and completion of the work done which involved removal of three
layers of shingles and replacing with a new layer of shingles on the
roof which covers approximately 1,900 square feet according to their
“Geomni” measurements. In an effort to resolve this dispute we
propose paying the cost for this minus the $6,300 deposit we made.
Regards,
[redacted]
will review Monday August 6th and respond after review. Nothing in this email waives any rights to proceed with any and all legal actions against all parties involved.