Sign in

Scott Roofing Company

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Scott Roofing Company? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Scott Roofing Company

Scott Roofing Company Reviews (25)

Ron Scott of Scott Roofing in Nashville Tn. Knows his business well. He is very professional as are his employees. They put a new roof on our house in April of 2016. The house was built in 1935 and has never had the decking replaced. It was literally disintegrating under the shingles. The crew as well as Mr. Scott were punctual and efficient. After they left there was no evidence they had been there except a beautifully sound new roof. A terrible storm came through recently which even knocked down a huge tree in our yard. Not a shingle bent or out of place. I highly recommend this company.

In response to the statement from the superintendant at Scott’s Roofing Company, there are a few statements he makes which are not accurate. These points were not indicated in our claim but could be misleading. We will address them briefly before going on to the other matters.

Regarding the statement by the superintendant that we complained repeatedly about the cost of the extra boards, we did express surprise at the extra cost and asked if it could be included in the overall cost. He made a phone call and indicated that we would have to pay for it, so we signed off on the order change. We were not happy but it was a very brief conversation and not a repeated complaint. In reference to “the requested discounts for the inconvenience of the A/C  disconnection for 2 hours while we roofed around the unit and for the smell of the hot tar used”, there are two inaccuracies. Regarding the complaint about the smell of the hot tar used on the patio, neither of us ever complained about that! Secondly, the A/C did not work for a longer period of time, and the circumstances described by him are insufficient. We noticed around noon that the house was getting pretty warm and annoying. We went to talk to the workers and they said they didn’t know about it and that the superintendant was gone. We were surprised that he had not checked it before leaving the premises. When he came back he checked it out and said that they would have to order a part and that it would arrive the next day. We suggested to call the A/C company to see if they would have the part here locally. In the meantime the temperature in the house was 86°. Luckily, he was able to get the part and fix it around 4:15. After awhile the house finally cooled down. When he came to collect the balance we did request a discount for the inconvenience, due to negligence, since he did not check early on to see if the A/C was working before leaving, and also because we work at home and were unable to work for several hours due to the heat. In our request for a discount at the time of payment, we did link the extra cost for the boards and the inconvenience caused by longer than standard A/C disconnect. The request seemed reasonable to us but it was denied. We paid the balance and that was it. As noted, these points were not indicated in our claim but there are some inaccuracies and they could be misleading, so we thought  it was worth addressing them.

The following is an account of the events as they occurred, with a different interpretation of the them based on the details, the view of three drywall experts and the [redacted].

Scott Roofing company did a roof overlay job for us and they put on a new patio slope cover. One week after they finished the job the patio drywall fell down. After I reported it to Scott’s Roofing (SR) they had the superintendant come out to inspect the damage. Initially, after speaking on the phone to somebody, the superintendant said that they would take care of it and that he would send someone out to clean up the mess. As he was leaving the house, we mentioned that the insurance company would still need to see the drywall pieces as they lay, so should we just tell the insurance company that SR would be taking care of it? He said that he thought so but he would double check, and he left. Later that afternoon SR called to inform us

 

that they were going to send out a drywall person to look at the damage. That evening the drywall person (not an employee but a private contractor who has done work for them for 15 years) called to set up an appointment, but on the phone he said that he knew what the problem was, it was just old (34 yrs.) and that was why it fell. The next day he came to see it and restated that it was old, and that Scott Roofing was not responsible. Next, a female representative from the company called and said they would not take care of it.

Next, we visited the [redacted] in [redacted] and spoke to a code expert who said that it should not have fallen. He said that it was reasonable to think that the pressure of the hammering and people walking on the roof was a factor for the drywall falling down. We should also indicate that my next door neighbor changed his roof one month ago with a different company and he had no problem with his drywall. I haven't heard of any other neighbors having this problem either. The timing of the incident surely seems to indicate a connection to their work.

We had three separate drywall licensed experts come out an take a look at it. They were all basically of the same opinion as the Building Safety expert. Though it is true that the drywall was old, considering the timing of the events it was reasonable to think that the pressure of the hammering and people walking on the roof was a factor for the drywall falling down.

Finally, there is one more important point. Scott Roofing installed and charged us for 3 boards that he said needed to be replaced (see change order 9/22/14 from SR among their submitted paperwork). According to the city code they should have gotten a permit since they replaced more than two boards. They did not get a permit, so they broke the city code. We found this out when we went to the [redacted] and spoke with code expert. Codes are written for a purpose and when they are not closely followed there can be negative consequences.

June 2016 had to have my flat roof coated & also decided to add some rain gutters. This is the 3rd time in 35 years I have used Scott Roofing & I highly recommend them. Everyone is friendly, efficient & there are no surprises.

To Whom It May Concern;

Scott Roofing Company promptly addressed the concerns and damage once we were notified by Ms. [redacted] & Mr. [redacted] which was one week after completion and final inspection of the...

work.

• We were not made aware of any problems until one week after the completion of our work and final inspection, at which time there was no visible drywall failure or concerns  brought to our attention by the homeowner.

• We are not responsible for these damages as there was no faulty workmanship or negligence on our part.

• Scott Roofing Company, at no time, shall be deemed liable for inherent defective building design.

• We contacted a drywall expert, [redacted] with [redacted]who assessed and determined the probable cause of the damage to be old/dry/brittle material.

We take every precaution possible prior to and during our work to prevent any foreseeable issues.We address those issues immediately and/or notify the homeowner(s) of such to protect the working relationship with our customer. Also, when we are notified of an occurrence or issue after the completion of work, we address it promptly and take responsibility for the issue if it is deemed to be faulty work or negligence on our part. Unfortunately, Scott Roofing Company does not find that to be the case here. The age, underlying condition, workmanship and maintenance of the patio drywall ceiling is not our expertise and it did not show any visible concerns for us to address prior to or during our work. We feel we are being accused of guilt by association and that any disturbance to the structure could have caused this damage .

Please see the attached affidavits by the superintendent, [redacted], and the Production Coordinator, [redacted], along with photographs and other supporting documents .

On 11/17/2014, to maintain a good working relationship with our customer and in good faith, Scott Roofing Company agreed to compensate the homeowners in the amount of $1,680.00 for the patio ceiling damage they incurred. They have additionally rescinded their complaint with the [redacted], per their letter attached. Please feel free to contact us with any additional questions.

Thanks Brad for stopping by over the weekend to address my concerns and put my mind at ease. Thanks!

Excellent workmanship. Excellent crew and especially the superintendent Eddie Cortez. His professional approach, courtesy and respect were most reassuring. His attention to detail was very gratifying making sure all work was performed at the highest standard. It was truly a 5 star experience.

Scott Roofing should be recognized for their high level of service. We are so pleased with them and the people working for them.

Seven years ago Scott re-foamed and coated our roof after we had completed the installation of a solar water system. They left a gap and low spot close to one of the pipes. Over the years after rain the water would seep down into the house. It took several years for damage to become evident---paint buckling and dry wall damage. When contacted Scott did not respond quickly and I had another company repair the damage. When I finally spoke with Scott about the damage I was told their warranty is 5 years and since they had not received a call in that time they would do nothing. Obviously some damage resulting from bad application is not readily apparent. I will not have Scott do any work in the future.

I would absolutely recommend Scott Roofing! I'd rather not say who, but I've already recommended them to two of my neighbors!

Review: Scott Roofing company did a roof overlay job for us and they put on a new patio slope cover. One week after they finished the job the patio drywall fell down. Initially, the supervisor, after speaking on the phone to somebody, said that they would take care of it. Later they sent out a drywall person (not an employee but he has done work for them for 15 years), but before he even came to see it he called and said that he knew what the problem was, it was just old (34 yrs.). The next day he came to see it and restated that it was old, and that Scott Roofing was not responsible. Next, the company called and said they would not take care of it.

I visited the [redacted] in [redacted] and spoke to the code specialist who said that it should not have fallen. It was reasonable to think that the pressure of the hammering and people walking on the roof was a factor for the drywall falling down. I should indicate that my next door neighbor changed his roof one month ago with a different company and he had no problem with his drywall. I haven't heard of any of my neighbors having this problem. The timing of the incident surely seems to indicate a connection to their work.

We had three separate drywall experts come out an take a look at it. They were all basically of the same opinion as the [redacted].

An additional and important point is that Scott Roofing charged me for 3 boards that he said needed to be replaced. According to the city code they should have gotten a permit since they replaced more than two boards. They did not get a permit, so they broke the city code. I found this out when I went to the [redacted] and spoke with with the code expert.Desired Settlement: Scott Roofing should take care and repair the drywall, as the supervisor initially indicated after seeing the damage.

Business

Response:

To Whom It May Concern;

Scott Roofing Company promptly addressed the concerns and damage once we were notified by Ms. [redacted] & Mr. [redacted] which was one week after completion and final inspection of the work.

• We were not made aware of any problems until one week after the completion of our work and final inspection, at which time there was no visible drywall failure or concerns brought to our attention by the homeowner.

• We are not responsible for these damages as there was no faulty workmanship or negligence on our part.

• Scott Roofing Company, at no time, shall be deemed liable for inherent defective building design.

• We contacted a drywall expert, [redacted] with [redacted]who assessed and determined the probable cause of the damage to be old/dry/brittle material.

We take every precaution possible prior to and during our work to prevent any foreseeable issues.We address those issues immediately and/or notify the homeowner(s) of such to protect the working relationship with our customer. Also, when we are notified of an occurrence or issue after the completion of work, we address it promptly and take responsibility for the issue if it is deemed to be faulty work or negligence on our part. Unfortunately, Scott Roofing Company does not find that to be the case here. The age, underlying condition, workmanship and maintenance of the patio drywall ceiling is not our expertise and it did not show any visible concerns for us to address prior to or during our work. We feel we are being accused of guilt by association and that any disturbance to the structure could have caused this damage .

Please see the attached affidavits by the superintendent, [redacted], and the Production Coordinator, [redacted], along with photographs and other supporting documents .

Consumer

Response:

In response to the statement from the superintendant at Scott’s Roofing Company, there are a few statements he makes which are not accurate. These points were not indicated in our claim but could be misleading. We will address them briefly before going on to the other matters.

Regarding the statement by the superintendant that we complained repeatedly about the cost of the extra boards, we did express surprise at the extra cost and asked if it could be included in the overall cost. He made a phone call and indicated that we would have to pay for it, so we signed off on the order change. We were not happy but it was a very brief conversation and not a repeated complaint. In reference to “the requested discounts for the inconvenience of the A/C disconnection for 2 hours while we roofed around the unit and for the smell of the hot tar used”, there are two inaccuracies. Regarding the complaint about the smell of the hot tar used on the patio, neither of us ever complained about that! Secondly, the A/C did not work for a longer period of time, and the circumstances described by him are insufficient. We noticed around noon that the house was getting pretty warm and annoying. We went to talk to the workers and they said they didn’t know about it and that the superintendant was gone. We were surprised that he had not checked it before leaving the premises. When he came back he checked it out and said that they would have to order a part and that it would arrive the next day. We suggested to call the A/C company to see if they would have the part here locally. In the meantime the temperature in the house was 86°. Luckily, he was able to get the part and fix it around 4:15. After awhile the house finally cooled down. When he came to collect the balance we did request a discount for the inconvenience, due to negligence, since he did not check early on to see if the A/C was working before leaving, and also because we work at home and were unable to work for several hours due to the heat. In our request for a discount at the time of payment, we did link the extra cost for the boards and the inconvenience caused by longer than standard A/C disconnect. The request seemed reasonable to us but it was denied. We paid the balance and that was it. As noted, these points were not indicated in our claim but there are some inaccuracies and they could be misleading, so we thought it was worth addressing them.

The following is an account of the events as they occurred, with a different interpretation of the them based on the details, the view of three drywall experts and the [redacted].

Scott Roofing company did a roof overlay job for us and they put on a new patio slope cover. One week after they finished the job the patio drywall fell down. After I reported it to Scott’s Roofing (SR) they had the superintendant come out to inspect the damage. Initially, after speaking on the phone to somebody, the superintendant said that they would take care of it and that he would send someone out to clean up the mess. As he was leaving the house, we mentioned that the insurance company would still need to see the drywall pieces as they lay, so should we just tell the insurance company that SR would be taking care of it? He said that he thought so but he would double check, and he left. Later that afternoon SR called to inform us

that they were going to send out a drywall person to look at the damage. That evening the drywall person (not an employee but a private contractor who has done work for them for 15 years) called to set up an appointment, but on the phone he said that he knew what the problem was, it was just old (34 yrs.) and that was why it fell. The next day he came to see it and restated that it was old, and that Scott Roofing was not responsible. Next, a female representative from the company called and said they would not take care of it.

Next, we visited the [redacted] in [redacted] and spoke to a code expert who said that it should not have fallen. He said that it was reasonable to think that the pressure of the hammering and people walking on the roof was a factor for the drywall falling down. We should also indicate that my next door neighbor changed his roof one month ago with a different company and he had no problem with his drywall. I haven't heard of any other neighbors having this problem either. The timing of the incident surely seems to indicate a connection to their work.

We had three separate drywall licensed experts come out an take a look at it. They were all basically of the same opinion as the Building Safety expert. Though it is true that the drywall was old, considering the timing of the events it was reasonable to think that the pressure of the hammering and people walking on the roof was a factor for the drywall falling down.

Finally, there is one more important point. Scott Roofing installed and charged us for 3 boards that he said needed to be replaced (see change order 9/22/14 from SR among their submitted paperwork). According to the city code they should have gotten a permit since they replaced more than two boards. They did not get a permit, so they broke the city code. We found this out when we went to the [redacted] and spoke with code expert. Codes are written for a purpose and when they are not closely followed there can be negative consequences.

I feel Scott Roofing is a class act all around, wish we would've worked you from the beginning .

This company quoted a job $1000. more the 2 other quotes.

for the same work to be done

I made an appointment to get an estimate on my patio roof last February. Travis went to my house and check what was my concern about my roof. He left his card and told my family member that he will email me the estimate. I waited for a week and haven't received any email. I called him back and he said he will email it to me but nothing. I emailed them and I was waiting for the response but nothing. I called so many times even talked to their manage a d said the same thing, that they will email it to me. It it already April and I haven't heard anything from them. My coworker recommended this company and I was very disappointed.

Responsive to follow-up work required to pass inspection. We are long time customers and have recommended Scott's Roofing to friends and family.

Great company with great people. Very friendly, knowledgeable and helpful. I would definitely recommend them to friends and family (which I think is the best compliment I can give!)

Was thorough and prepared detailed report .

I was extremely pleased! Great experience! Scott roofing answered all my questions, came to my office, and communicated with me often, which I appreciated the most. They were patient and accommodating throughout the process and quick to text me back when I had a questions or needed an update. Further, they went the extra mile to get some matching paint to do some touch ups after roofing was complete. The workers were pleasant, quick, and professional. I couldn't be happier.

The whole staff at Scott Roofing Company are friendly and very helpful.Roy was very knowledgeable and all my golfing buddies know of your company! Thanks so much!

Prompt, courteous and professional... Made it easy! I delayed submitting the evaluation until the monsoon season tested the quality of the new roof.... and the new roof passed with flying colors! From beginning to end Scott Roofing has been stellar!

Check fields!

Write a review of Scott Roofing Company

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Scott Roofing Company Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Roofing Contractors, Contractor - Flat Roof, Commercial Roofing, Contractor - Roofing Spray Foam Insulation, Contractor - Tile Roofing, Roof Decks, Roof Structures

Address: 1124 Davidson Rd, Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37205-1026

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Scott Roofing Company.



Add contact information for Scott Roofing Company

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated