The U P S Store # 1277

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

the last attempted patch was in late February early March I could not tell if it was not drying or still leaking until this weekendI contact Brian Cameron by text with a photo on Saturday May a little after 5pm

As the building inspector for the *** ** *** stated, the roof was installed correctly and there is nothing wrong with the installation of the roof. The drip edge was installed to the specifications of the manufacturerWe offered a solution to the homeowner but it went beyond what the original contract called forThere would be an additional charge that she is unwilling to pay. We offered to do the work at our cost. The homeowner found that to be unacceptable and she has tried to get us to do the additional work for free by filing a formal complaint with the Revdex.com. Under the circumstances, we now rescind doing any additional work for the homeowner. I hope you understand our position

Revdex.com spoke to ** *** building inspector - his response is - As far as codes for the roof, there was nothing wrongThere is leaking behind the gutter believed to be caused by the lack of adjustment of the drip edge from multiple roof layers previously thereCurrently there is no code for the installation of drip edge, so yes the roof did pass inspectionThe papers previously sent show the manufacturers specs on how the drip edge should be installed

I met with the homeowner to discuss her concerns regarding her mother's gutters. We didn't remove or displace the gutters while we were replacing her roof. The building inspector for town in which she lives found that we're not responsible for how her gutters were performing. We
had agreed to make any modifications the building inspector found us to be responsible for. Since he found us not be responsible we took no additional actions

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Regards,*** *** The building inspector said something completely different to usThe issue is that the new roof and drip edge were not installed correctly and are causing damageWe can get experts to testify

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the response I reviewed appear below.   1.  The business states that the last time a business representative met with the homeowner,"there was a resolution that was agreed to and was in the process of being implemented."  The basis of this complaint is two outstanding unresolved issues. As of this date, August 18, nothing regarding the unresolved issues has been agreed to and nothing regarding the unresolved issues is being implemented.    2.  The business states that I met with a representative of the insulation company. The business arranged a meeting between myself and an individual who introduced himself as an independent insulation consultant.  I met with the consultant to discuss insulation and ventilation specifications. The consultant made it clear that he was not an employee of the business.  He also made it clear that he was not involved in any way with pricing or with implementation —  his involvment was only with the specifications which he would then forward to the business. The specifications the consultant and I settled on were exactly as stated in the insulation proposal provided by the business. My conclusion was that the consultant was performing a service for the business.During our discussions the only business name the consultant mentioned was "Cameron".  If the consultant was a representative of the insulation company, I was not aware of it, and nothing in our discussions stated or implied such.  The consultant did not introduce himself as such, nor did the business inform me of such.   3.  The business states they have "already been in touch with the homeowner and he indicated that the filing the complaint was probably unnecessary."  Since this complaint was filed, the business has been in touch with me only once regarding the unresolved issues, and that was to arrange a meeting for later this week.  I never indicated to anyone, at any time, directly or indirectly, in any way, shape or form, that the complaint was unnecessary.  I do not know what the business is referring to in this statement.I am waiting for the outcome of the meeting scheduled for later this week.
Regards,
[redacted]

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

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not fully resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Cameron Roofing has as I stated in the original complaint attempted to fix the issue and at one put when both myself and a roofer thought the repair was complete the interior ceiling was repaired/repainted. At this time the interior has not been fixed since the most recent repair, I have been told they will and will contact them directly this week to male arrangements. Cameron will still need to repair the interior.  As for the fix this time they sent an individual with 30 years roofing experience. He took the time to assess and listen to the situation. Camerons roofing during initial install had to take off the siding during the tear off.  When it was replaced by the roofing team it was not re-installed properly. It does appear that since the siding has been adjusted the leak is no longer happening. I have not seen water come in and the ceiling does seem to be drying at this point.
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
[redacted]

I understand the frustration of the homeowner.  We've been...

baffled as to the cause of this up until 3 weeks ago or so.  The homeowner met up with our roof repair specialist and he identified the problem was coming from a siding issue (not the roof).  Not only have we been there numerous times we have returned to resolve the issue but I also had a member of my interior remodeling come to repair any interior damage caused.  I hope this solves this homeowner's issues. She has been patient in this long drawn out problem.

I am a little confused as to why our customer filed a formal complaint.  He has expressed all of these concerns to 2 people on my staff as well as myself and we've been working with him to satisfy his issues.  The last time a representative had met with the homeowner, it was my...

understanding that there was a resolution that was agreed to and was in the process of being implemented.We never intended to mislead the homeowner that the insulation work was performed by our staff.  The homeowner had met with a representative of the insulation company prior to an insulation estimate being provided.  The insulation company representative does not introduce himself as a representative of our company.  I thought it's evident that it was not being completed by our company.  Our website does state all the work is performed by employees of ours.  That statement on our website needs to be corrected.Many times it makes sense to address insulation when a roof is being replaced.  We thought offering those services to our customers after the winter we just had made sense.  We should have made mention of that on our website.We've already been in touch with the homeowner and he indicated that the filing the complaint was probably unnecessary.We are still working with the homeowner to resolve his insulation issues.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
1.  It is true that the business offered many solutions. However, conspicuous by its absence, was the proper and most effective solution — the one articulated in the specification — the one the business committed to in their proposal — the one the business failed to deliver.  2.  The business states that I "just think" the openings in the soffits are not wide enough.  It is important to note that I am not alone in that judgment.  The insulation consultant who generated the specifications was very specific about the importance of removing the soffits — that is why the specification was written as it was — and he is the expert.  Of all the specifications in the entire job, this is the most important one, and I discussed it throughly with the insulation consultant.  This specification is the result of a careful and thoughtful process — it is not something I "just think."  3.  The business refers to a "full refund."  Although it is understandable why they use that term, the term is misleading and requires clarification.  The following is taken directly from the insulation proposal provided by the business: "NOTE: PRICE REFLECTIVE OF WORK BEING DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ROOF REPLACEMENT."  This means that the prices in the proposal are discounted prices in consideration of other work being done.  It is these "discounted" prices that the business refers to as "full."  That may make sense from the perspective of the business but their perspective is not the only one to consider.From my perspective the refund that makes sense is that one that pays for another contractor to finish the job.  That refund is higher than the discounted price.  The "full refund" referred to by the business is a "partial refund" to me.  4.  The business refers to "the benefit of also having the work complete."  The work is "complete" only when the job is finished and the decision by the business on a refund, without any discussion with me, is a definitive statement by the business that they have no intention of finishing the job.  The best I can now do is salvage whatever I can from a job gone bad.  All I can salvage is what the business has refunded.  The bottom line is that I will have to incur additional expense to finish the job.  That is hardly an acceptable resolution to this complaint nor any kind of "benefit" for me.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com spoke with the business who advised that the consumer was refunded the $750 which was the full cost of the disputed Sofit work, which the consumer had issues with.

the last attempted patch was in late February 2017 early March 2017. I could not tell if it was not drying or still leaking until this weekend. I contact Brian Cameron by text with a photo on Saturday May 6 2017 a little after 5pm.