Tarrant Roofing, LLC

Good afternoon [redacted], Attached is the documentation from the onsite visit occurring at 6:45 a.m. on Friday, September 1st, 2017. The submission of this information was delayed due to time constraints with end of month, the holiday and ensuring any comments from the City of Richland Hills were included prior to sending. Onsite visit occurred on the property located at [redacted], Richland Hills, TX 76118 between Mr. [redacted] from Tarrant Roofing and the homeowner, [redacted]. Below is a synopsis and photos of the onsite visit/meeting. At approximately 6:40 a.m. the homeowner was exiting the back patio/carport door to set out the trash prior to the appointment with Mr. [redacted]. The homeowner was extremely startled to find Mr. [redacted] approaching the back/side door. Sections labeled Tarrant Roofing’s Response refer to the responses made by Mr. [redacted] during the onsite visit.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted] will meet with her at 6:45 am on Friday, September 1st.   [redacted] has met with her on 3 previous occasions and [redacted] has met her once for sure on site.  Though it didn’t seem that she listed each of those, we just wanted to make sure you had the correct information.

City inspection required flashing to extend down more over the fascia. So we are adding flashing so that the requirement is met. We are currently looking at trying to reschedule city inspection for Monday, July 17, 2017.

She has retracted that claim .   Thank you, [redacted]   
[redacted]

We have satisfied Mrs. [redacted] again. We have provided the letter that was needed. We have requested a third inspection from the city of North Richland Hills.

I am writing a letter regarding the property at [redacted]. We installed this roof for theprevious homeowner. He was satisfied with the work and paid us in full. Unfortunately, this homeownerpassed away and the house was sold. We received a call from the current homeowner and she wasreporting several leaks. We sent our installer out to diagnose. He was not allowed on the house. Wethen sent a different repair man out who was allowed to get on the roof. He found three areas thatwere shown to him. Two of the reported areas were outside the home along the patio cover and thecarport. These were due to bad design of the add-ons. We never worked on these sections, as theywere not part of the roof replacement. The third area, we found a seam that had not sealed properlyand addressed this.After the next rain only the leaks from the areas we never worked on were reported. Since thehomeowner was frustrated we addressed all of her concerns. We replaced rotted wood on the fasciatrim in several areas, we returned to replace more that she was concerned about. We even went andreplaced the entire roof again. The only area that we could not address, was the metal carport junctionwith the roof. The design and obsolete panels prevent a viable solution to this leaking area.We have also not had any additional leaks reported. We returned twice to repair the flashingconcerns that two separate inspections by the city code compliance office raised. I have been trying tomake an appointment with the homeowner to address pictures she sent showing some rotted fascia.Due to a death in her family we have been unable to meet at this time.We feel we have gone far and above what we were originally contracted to do. Every time we goout new items are brought up, even after 2 separate walk arounds to make sure there are no otherconcerns. The most recent pictures are of rotted fascia trim that has nothing to do with a roofinstallation.Best Regards,[redacted]Tarrant Roofing[redacted]

Resolution and communication with Tarrant Roofing remains in progress. A request for a third inspection was made this morning through the city. Scheduling this inspection was pending the letter from the contractor on company letterhead stating the shingles and flashing are installed per manufacturer's installation instructions and the 2012 IRC as required per the previous inspection. (see attached)A copy of the inspection and any additional notes will be sent to [redacted], Dispute Resolution Specialist with the Revdex.com, after the third inspection.

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Update concerning third inspection is pending. The City of Richland Hills was contacted again today cerning scheduling of third inspection. The statement "We have satisfied Mrs. [redacted] again" is concerning. There are still areas pending additional review/inspection. See attached photos of a few of these areas. These areas are being evaluated after the recent rain. Regards, Ms. [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:As of today, the current homeowner has yet to meet Mr. [redacted], Owner of Tarrant Roofing, in person on site or otherwise, The homeowner has communicated with Mr. [redacted] via text, phone, email and voicemail. Therefore, the statement "[redacted] has met her once for sure on site" provided by Mr. [redacted] is inaccurate. As per information received direct from the manufacturers, Tamko & Certainteed, a new warranty is to be issued to the homeowner of record at time of installation of new product. As of today, the current homeowner is still awaiting new warranties for the installation of new Tamko & Certainteed products. Certainteed also advised the product detail MUST be included on the warranty, this information was omitted from the warrant for the previous product installation done on November 21st, 2016. The homeowner looks forward to receiving the original warranty forms as soon as possible and/or prior to the scheduled meeting with Mr. [redacted] at 6:45 a.m. on Friday, September 1st, 2017. Respectfully,
[redacted]