Reynolds Siding, Inc.

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
When Reynolds Siding was contacted about finding and repairing our roof leak issue the person that was sent to evaluate the problem never inspected the roof.  From the yard, he looked up at the roof and chimney and said, "your flashing needs to be replaced".  At that point we took him at his word as he had presented himself as an expert roofer, and the leak did appear to be around the chimney area.   We then asked for a price, and said to repair it.  When he returned to do the repair work he never physically got on the roof even then, but only sent a helper up on the roof to replace the flashing.  We just recently found out that the leak was due to a hole which they never discovered, and never repaired because it was under the old flashing which they never removed.  They only covered up the old flashing and caulked around it to make it appear to have been re-flashed. This is not the industry standard, and not how reputable roofing companies re-flash a chimney.  I have since talked to several local roofing companies, and they all have said that to re-flash a chimney correctly you MUST first remove the old flashing. We paid Reynolds Siding $750.00 to find the leak, and to re-flash around the chimney and they did not do either of these things.  They did NOT re-flash our chimney, they only covered over the old flashing instead of removing it which is the industry standard, and  they certainly DID NOT find, much less fix any leaks.  Actually, what they did do ended up making things worse, and unfortunately we did not realize this until we got the 19 inches of rain in the fall.  Prior to that much rain we discovered the insulation and plasterboard had been absorbing the moisture.  As far as a "one year warranty," I am not sure how you warranty work you never did.  I called the owner of Reynolds Siding after the new roofer found the old flashing still under the cosmetic flashing he had installed along with the now large hole under the old un-removed flashing.  The owner said to send pictures, which I emailed to him.  He replied to this email with his standard response which is, "too bad, warranty up".  I again emailed him to explain that my issue was that he never did the work we paid him to do, to which he did not respond at all.  I then sent him a certified letter telling him again what my issues were, and that to preserve the good name of his company to at least come to our home and let me show him the old flashing still under what he did, and the pipe boots that his company had installed that were the wrong size and that caused some additional water issues, to which he did not respond to either.   I believe what Reynolds did was fraudulent as they accepted money for work they did not do, as they did not replace the flashing and they certainly did not find or repair any leaks.
Regards,
[redacted]

Reynolds did a terrific job installing siding and gutters on my home. They gave me the best price of any other quotes I received. Supervisor came by to inspect work once completed. Workers cleaned up mess. I would highly recommend them.

Review: We paid Reynolds Siding $750.00 to locate a roof leak and replace the flashing around the chimney. They did neither, which we did not realize until this fall when we got 19 inches of rain in a short period of time, and our ceiling in the upstairs bedroom flooded. Before the 19 inches of rain, the insulation and plasterboard in the attic had been absorbing the moisture. I found out from the new roofer that they did not replace the flashing at all, they only put cosmetic flashing over the existing flashing. Since this is all they did, they did not discover the hole in the roof under the un-removed old flashing. I have since learned that it is the accepted industry standard to remove all old flashing before installing new flashing. When we hired them it was for the original purpose of finding where our roof was leaking, and fix it. We were told by them that we needed to replace the flashing which we paid them to do, which they did not do, they only made it appear to have been done. Also, since the hole went undiscovered because the old flashing was not removed as it should have been, the leak was never fixed. So, for the $750.00 we paid them they did not fix the leak or replace the flashing.Desired Settlement: We want our $750.00 back as they did not do the work we paid them for. They did not replace the flashing, but instead did a cosmetic "quick fix" and since they did not replace the flashing they did not discover the hole so therefore they did not fix the roof leak.

Business

Response:

It is unfortunate that the customer feels this way. We were originally

contacted in regards to a roof leak with the work being completed on or around

May 2013. We sent one of our associates out to assess the issue. Upon

inspection, the leak was located and an estimate for repair was provided and

accepted. The associate then corrected the leak. The chimney was re-flashed and

counter flashing was placed over the new flashing which is the standard

practice for repair. Our labor warrantee is 1 year, which was explained to the

customer at the time the work was completed. The customer then contacted the

company 2 ½ years after the work was completed to advise that there was an

issue at the same residence, after the repair was completed. Unfortunately, with the adverse weather that

we have experienced over the past 2 years, the time since the work was

completed, along with our inability to assess the new issue before repair we were

unable to offer a full or partial refund.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

When Reynolds Siding was contacted about finding and repairing our roof leak issue the person that was sent to evaluate the problem never inspected the roof. From the yard, he looked up at the roof and chimney and said, "your flashing needs to be replaced". At that point we took him at his word as he had presented himself as an expert roofer, and the leak did appear to be around the chimney area. We then asked for a price, and said to repair it. When he returned to do the repair work he never physically got on the roof even then, but only sent a helper up on the roof to replace the flashing. We just recently found out that the leak was due to a hole which they never discovered, and never repaired because it was under the old flashing which they never removed. They only covered up the old flashing and caulked around it to make it appear to have been re-flashed. This is not the industry standard, and not how reputable roofing companies re-flash a chimney. I have since talked to several local roofing companies, and they all have said that to re-flash a chimney correctly you MUST first remove the old flashing. We paid Reynolds Siding $750.00 to find the leak, and to re-flash around the chimney and they did not do either of these things. They did NOT re-flash our chimney, they only covered over the old flashing instead of removing it which is the industry standard, and they certainly DID NOT find, much less fix any leaks. Actually, what they did do ended up making things worse, and unfortunately we did not realize this until we got the 19 inches of rain in the fall. Prior to that much rain we discovered the insulation and plasterboard had been absorbing the moisture. As far as a "one year warranty," I am not sure how you warranty work you never did. I called the owner of Reynolds Siding after the new roofer found the old flashing still under the cosmetic flashing he had installed along with the now large hole under the old un-removed flashing. The owner said to send pictures, which I emailed to him. He replied to this email with his standard response which is, "too bad, warranty up". I again emailed him to explain that my issue was that he never did the work we paid him to do, to which he did not respond at all. I then sent him a certified letter telling him again what my issues were, and that to preserve the good name of his company to at least come to our home and let me show him the old flashing still under what he did, and the pipe boots that his company had installed that were the wrong size and that caused some additional water issues, to which he did not respond to either. I believe what Reynolds did was fraudulent as they accepted money for work they did not do, as they did not replace the flashing and they certainly did not find or repair any leaks.

Regards,

Business

Response:

It is unfortunate that we were unable to

satisfy this customer. I did speak with the customer’s spouse on the phone and

received multiple emails along with a certified letter from her and replied to

her email correspondence. After reviewing the pictures that the customer took

while a roof repair was being completed by a 3rd party and receiving

a written statement by the crew leader who completed the work, I advised the

customer that we would be unable to provide her with the compensation for which

she asked. In May of 2013 we corrected a roof leak at the residence. After the

crew leader climbed up in the attic it was determined that the leak was around

the chimney. All of the old shingles and old flashing was removed in that area

and replaced with new step flashing and counter flashing. In the pictures that

the customer provided our installed step flashing and counter flashing can be

seen. In December 2015, 2 ½ years after the work was completed, the customer’s

spouse contacted Reynolds Siding requesting $500 in compensation. A couple of

months prior to this, the homeowner contacted the crew leader who completed the

original repair directly on a Saturday outside of business hours to advise that

they had an additional leak. The customer did not go through the company and

preferred to pay cash for repairs. At this point the individual went to the

home and accessed the roof. He used a flat bar and lifted every shingle around

the chimney and they were dry with no signs of water. This was done in the

presence of the homeowner. The determination was made that the water must be

coming in under the flashing somewhere. The individual inspected the chimney

and discovered cracks in the mortar and a new chimney cap had been installed

two weeks prior by someone. The chimney cap was holding a large amount of

water. The homeowner was then advised that the cap could have changed the path

of the water causing the leak along with the cracks that were discovered in the

mortar. An additional suggestion was made that there should be some sort of

drip cap on the chimney to keep the water from only running down the brick and

mortar. The cracks were caulked as a temporary fix and it was discussed that

the homeowner may want to seal the whole chimney. The homeowner advised that

two other homes on his street were experiencing the same issue. He was told

that the flashing would be re-caulked as a way to determine that it had been the

brick and mortar causing the issue. A week later the roof was reviewed again

and there still was no water under the shingles that were placed by Reynolds Siding,

at that time the individual made the determination that the chimney would need

to be sealed. No decision was made to do that at the time. The homeowner then

called approximately two weeks later and stated that

he had located a drip pan in his attic that the previous owner had left to

catch the water from the chimney and said he would take care of the issue

himself. That is the last communication that the individual had with the

customer. The customer’s spouse then called Reynolds Siding and asked for $500

as compensation for the work that we completed two and a half years prior. With

the statement from my crew leader, the time that it has been since Reynolds Siding

did work for the customer, and the review of the pictures provided by the

customer I advised the customer that I would not be able to reimburse her $500.

I also advised that there had been many adverse weather conditions over the

extended time and the warranty for work is one year. All work that was done on

the customer's residence after the shingle, flashing and counter flashing

replacement in May 2013 was completed through cash transactions were the

company was not involved. We have not had a complaint in our 42 years of

business and would have welcomed the opportunity to assess the customer’s roof

issues before repairs were made.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

My issue with Reynolds Siding is that they never any did the work that we paid them $750.00 to do, which we only discovered this past fall. The crew leader did not look for, or find where our roof was leaking. He never was in our attic to look for a leak, and actually never even physically got on our roof until this past fall. He did, however stand in our closet and look where we pointed out the leak was. He then stood on the ground and looked up at our chimney and said our flashing needed to be replaced, and this was why we had a leak in our closet ceiling. We took him at his word as he presented himself as a "roofing expert". He never even got on our roof while the the flashing was supposedly being replaced. When the flashing was removed this fall still in search of the leak, the old flashing was still there under the cosmetic flashing that Reynolds had put on top of it, and I have both of them as proof, which I emailed the owner a picture of. The leak in the roof was due to a hole directly under the old flashing, which was never removed, and therefore not discovered or repaired. Reynolds was hired to replace our flashing and find the roof leak, they did neither. Since Reynolds didn't do either of what they were hired to do, how do you warranty work you never did? It did take a couple of years to realize that they didn't do what we paid them to do as the water from the hole which caused the leak was being absorbed by the insulation and dry wall. We never had and an "additional" leak, it was the same original leak that we had hired them to find and repair two years ago. When we contacted the crew leader after our closet ceiling flooded this fall when we had so much rain that the insulation and drywall could no longer absorb it, we were in a panic. At that point, we were still unaware that they had never made the repairs that we had paid them to do. For the first time, the crew leader did actually go on our roof. He informed us that in his opinion it was not a flashing issue, but that we had cracks in the mortar in the chimney. He said for $100.00 he would caulk them, and we still not realizing that all this water was coming from the hole under the un-removed original flashing gave him the go ahead as we didn't know what else to do. We have since ruled out that any of this had anything to do with the replacement of the chimney cap. We have also ruled out that there is any issue with the mortar or the chimney itself. All of the issues we have had have solely to do with the fact that Reynolds DID NOT replace our flashing and only covered it over, and since that is what they did, which no reputable roofer would do, they did not discover or repair the hole in our roof. I did contact by phone the owner the day that the new roofer took the flashing off and discovered that Reynolds had only covered our old flashing and the hole under that old flashing. He made no effort to come to my home, and only said to email him photos, which I did. Shortly after that I received a return email that said "warranty up". After several emails and a certified letter asking him to at least come out and see the old flashing under the cosmetic flashing he put up, and the pipe boots that they also installed that were the wrong size, I received no response from him, so I don't understand how he can say he would have welcomed the opportunity to assess this issue. He is still welcome to come out and see the old un-removed flashing under what he put up and pipe boots. I also have clear pictures of the hole that was under the flashing.

Regards,