Weber Windows

Document is attached in answer to the complaint received on 4/19/( [redacted] ) If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.RE: Response to Revdex.com Complaint [redacted] ***To Whom It May Concern:Weber Windows received notice of the above referenced complaint on April 19, 2016.Let me begin by saying that we take customer concerns very seriouslyAs you know, our company is an Accredited A+ business with the Revdex.com and even received the prestigious Revdex.com Torch Award in In addition, we have received the ***’s List Super Service Award for seven consecutive years (every year it has been issued in our market)We believe that these recognitions, as well as our pristine record with the Revdex.com speak to the fact that we are and have always been very responsive to our customers’ needs and strive to do our best to avoid and resolve any problems as quickly as possible.We are the first to admit that we are human and occasionally make mistakes, but we never shirk our responsibilities to our customersAlthough we had hoped to reach a resolution with this customer directly, we have yet to receive sufficient information to determine if in fact our company bears any responsibility for the damage stated in the claim, especially since we were denied access to inspect or evaluate the claim first-handI would like to make it clear that the product used in this application was an extruded aluminum clad wood product from a reputable manufacturer, NOT our exclusive fiberglass productBelow we have addressed every concern stated by the customer in their complaint as well as provided additional information where deemed important to the issue at handCustomer stated that we did not use our own installersWe were not untruthful to the customerThe installers were our own dedicated installersWhile it has always been our policy to use W-installers as we do now and have in the past, there was a period of about a year when we did use installers who were paid on a basis rather than by W-These installers were still, in fact, dedicated installers for our company and subject to the same rigorous standards of W-employees in terms of background checks, liability insurance, worker’s compensation as well as installation methods approved by us and our manufacturersThey were not a random subcontractor we pulled off the street and the same crew installed all of our jobs during that short periodIn fact, one of the installation crew was a prior employee of our company for over years priorCustomer stated that we charged them for scaffolding that was not used and did not refund the costWe have carefully reviewed the estimate/contract signed by the customer and there is no mention of charging extra for scaffoldingWe did incur extra cost for 2nd and 3rd floor installation, in comparison to the 1st floor due to the time required to work from ladders, scaffolding, etcfrom a higher surfaceIn fact, we did in fact pay the installers $1,extra for the 2nd & 3rd floor installation, whether it required the use of scaffolding or not, so there was no refund due to the customer [redacted] Weber denies ever making the comment to the customer, “Oh well”Customer stated that the water and air that leaked into their home was the result of a poor job of installationThe customer purchased windows from us on July 11, and the installation was completed on August 23, We were contacted on November 8, to re-caulk a couple of small areas where there was a break in the secondary sealantDuring installation there are two barriers to prevent air & water from infiltrating the homeThe primary barrier is the low expansion foam that fills the cavity surrounding the window frame and the framing of the structureThe secondary barrier is the exterior sealant around the perimeter of the window frameWe use a modified polyurethane sealant on the exterior which is self-leveling and contracts slightly as it curesIt appeared that there were one or two small areas which had contracted more than others and they were recaulked on November 11, (days later)At this time there was no mention of any water infiltration into the home.About two months later (January 2014) the customer complained of air leaking at the bottom of the lower sash/sill on several windowsWe contacted the manufacturer and they sent one of their service techs to address the problem on January 27, This was not a result of faulty installation on our part but rather an issue with the product manufacturerIt was determined by the manufacturer that the jamb liners were over- torqued into the frame during production at the factory, creating a gap which allowed air and potentially moisture to penetrate the windowsThe manufacturer repaired the problem on-site.Approximately months later (August 28, 2014) we received a call that water had leaked down from the top trim of one windowIt is worth mentioning that the prior day (Aug 27, 2014) Louisville had Severe Thunderstorm Rain Squalls with winds gusting at nearly MPHI inspected the problem on August 28th (the same day as the call) and as a precautionary measure, re-caulked the window above the one that was stated to have had water coming in at the top trimIt can be very difficult to pin [redacted] water infiltration into a home as the window is often the first place water finds a way to enter the interior of the home, even if the water enters the wall from a different source, (i.eroof or siding leak, unsealed bricks/mortar, sprinkler systems, etc.) With the type of wind gusts and rain squalls associated with the storm that occurred the day prior it is not uncommon for water to infiltrate the wall of the home from some sourceFor this reason, no further investigation was done and it was not determined that anything with regard to our installation caused this water to infiltrate the home or even that the water came in as a result of the window installationIt could have just as easily entered the home as a result of horizontal winds or overflowing gutters/roof that leaked into the wall cavity and escaped through the window opening, etcCustomer phoned us on January 4, and left a message, which was returned later that day but we were unable to reach themWe had not heard from this customer since August 28, 2014, so we assumed that no further problems had occurred with regard to water infiltration and that the incident referenced above was most likely due to the severe rain squalls and high winds from the previous dayThe customer returned our call on January 5, and we spokeHe advised us that [redacted] was coming over that day and that he was concerned about the presence of mold under the window we had previously caulked after the storm in He also stated that he found a water leak/soft drywall below the window and had poked his finger right in, indicating that the insulation was dampHe said they ( [redacted] ) asked him if he had experienced any flooding recently and he told them that he had the windows replaced and that they were installed incorrectly and that could be what is causing the problemIt is apparent that [redacted] and ***- [redacted] made comments with regard to the water infiltration potentially being caused by a leaking window only as a result of being told so by the homeowner and not that they determined that to be the authentic cause of the leak.Later that day, (Jan 5th) the customer called back again and spoke with meHe advised that [redacted] confirmed that there was mold behind the wall in the lower level and recommended he contact ***- [redacted] to check the air quality [redacted] asked if the drywall was removed when they made this determination so that we could inspect it ourselves and he indicated it had not been removed but that ***- [redacted] had a probe that they could use to testCustomer indicated that ***- [redacted] was coming out the following Monday to perform their inspectionI asked to be present so that we could inspect the window & installation in order to make a determination if indeed the window or installation could be a contributing factor or if it could have been some other sourceI was refused access by the customer and he went on to say that he would forward all of the information from the results to us along with the billsI again, requested to be present and was again, denied accessWe were more than willing to work with the customer to evaluate and remedy the problem if deemed our fault but we were not allowed access and were forced to rely on third party testing, none of which indicated the exact reason for the leak (other than the homeowner told them it was due to a faulty window install) and no repairs were required to the windows to prevent what was explained to us as current leaking.The next communication we received from the customer was an email on March 30, indicating that they would be sending us bills for remediation of the moldOn April 4, we received an email from the customer with bills attached from ***- [redacted] , [redacted] , [redacted] , [redacted] and [redacted] Paint totaling $4,There were no reports attached from any of those companies with their findings or pictures and no explanationI replied via email on April 6th and requested copies of all of the reports be submitted to us so that I could evaluate and further address their request.We received another email, (I believe the following day) with a copy of the assessment performed by ***- [redacted] , however, we have to date, never received reports from [redacted] with either their initial evaluation or detail/pictures assessment of the work that was performedCustomer states in their complaint that the mold growth exposed them to high levels of unhealthy mold sporesRegardless of whether or not our company has any liability for the cause of the water infiltration, this statement is inconsistent with the findings from ***- [redacted] Their report specifically states that the room in question (Basement Exercise Room) did indicate mold growth “inside” the wall cavity space on insulation, drywall and framing, however, there were NO elevated moisture levels detected around the water damaged areaIn addition, the report indicated that only trace spore clusters were detected, suggesting slight contamination present within the wall cavity spaceThey tested three other areas within the home and only one other area showed any sign of mold, with the same description as above, “trace spore clusters, suggesting slight contamination present within the wall cavity”, not high levels of unhealthy mold spores as indicated by the customer***- [redacted] concluded that there was no indication of wetness within the assessed areas but there was evidence of water damage and mold growth from past intrusion into the homeIn addition, they recommended that restoration work be performed in the Exercise Room in accordance with IICRC Standard S520, and EPA and OSHA guidelines but also indicated that the slight contamination may not represent a significant threat to the indoor air quality of the home.We did not receive any copies of inspections, pictures or work reports from [redacted] indicating what was examined or what work was performedThe report from ***- [redacted] indicated that the [redacted] should be pulled away from the wall, drywall and insulation removed beginning at the area below the 1st floor window until no more damage is found, however, there was no recommendation to replace the [redacted] or indication that the [redacted] was even contaminatedA large part of the bills submitted ($2,187.00) is for [redacted] replacement with no indication of the age or quality of [redacted] that was being replaced.In conclusion, it is apparent that water infiltrated the home at some prior [redacted] and in fact, we were made aware of the event that occurred on August 27, 2014, however, it has not been determined that the cause of the water infiltration was due to a faulty installation on our part or that water re-infiltrated the home at some [redacted] after that dateIn fact, there is no mention in the report or complaint from the customer that there is any indication of rot/decay or mold damage to the window product itself or any required repair/replacement of the windowsIt would be reasonable to expect that repair/remediation of mold would not be performed without first identifying the nature of the water infiltration and remedying that problem so that there is not a future recurrence.In addition, although attempts were made on our part to examine the problem and try to pin [redacted] the nature of the problem so that we could try to resolve this issue with the customer, we were denied the opportunity to do soIt is highly probable, however, that the water infiltration that occurred in August was a result of unusually high gusts of wind and severe storms which allowed water to penetrate the home at some ***, which has never been determined.Thank you for the opportunity to address this complaintIf you have any questions regarding this issue beyond what is included in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me personally.Respectfully yours, [redacted] Weber, President Weber Windows

Please see attached letter in response to request for additional information I would be happy to answer any questions or discuss further if necessary.May 9, Revdex.com, IncS4th StreetLouisville, KY 40203-2186RE: Additional Response to Revdex.com Complaint *** *** *** *** *** ***
*** ** ***To Whom It May Concern:Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the additional comments made by the homeowner in the above referenced case. In response to the homeowners comment that we acknowledged that the windows were leaking and that we had to repair windows that were leaking, we would like to re-iterate the following as we do not agree with both of those statements.We did not acknowledge that the windows were leaking water. We stated that the homeowner advised us that water was entering the home above one of the windows, not that the window itself leakedThe fact that water entered the home above a window does not necessarily mean that the window installation was the cause of the water infiltration, as water can enter the home’s wall system in various ways, such as overflowing gutters, roof/soffit leaks, cracks in the brick mortar, sprinklers hitting the home, excessive wind/rain, etc. The window is often the first opening in the homes’ wall that water can finds its way to enter.The homeowner contacted us about an air leakage problem with the windows and the cause was deemed to be a result of manufacturing, not due to improper installation. To the best of our knowledge, the manufacturer’s field service department inspected and repaired the problem as requested by us on behalf of the homeowner.We understand why the homeowner believes the window to be the source of water infiltration since they state they had not experienced issues like this before, however, the cause of the leak cannot be determined without performing the proper inspections and testing to determine the cause and eliminate other possible causes. It is unlikely that the window installation is at fault since we use two methods of sealing the window, (1) with foam insulation that fills and surrounds the frame within the wall and (2) with exterior/interior caulking. Even if water should somehow penetrate the exterior caulking for some reason, it should not penetrate the interior foam. I have attached a couple of pictures from a recent job we completed a few weeks ago to better demonstrate what I am talking aboutThe first picture is an example of the low expansion foam insulation, which seals the perimeter of the window inside the framing. The window is further protected by both exterior and interior caulking, which must be maintained by the homeowner after installationThe second image is a picture of the top framing lumber above a window we recently removed and replaced for a new customer. You can see the presence of water infiltration and mold in the framing material above the window where the water penetrated the window opening. The homeowner believed the window was the cause of the leak because water was coming in around the window frame, when in fact water was penetrating the window opening due to a leak farther up the home’s exterior where a deck/door was attached to the home and water was leaking into the wall cavity. Having stated all of the above, we are not saying that the window installation or perhaps the window itself could not have been a contributing factor to the water infiltration; however, we have never been provided with results of any certified water tests or other examinations to determine that the window or installation was indeed the cause of the problem The only report we received was from ***, who performed the air quality testing. We have not received reports from any other contractors involved in the remediation. The company who performed the remediation should have provided a detailed report including pictures showing the extent of the water infiltration all the way to the source of entry and resulting damages from the water as well as repairs required and ultimately the cause of the water infiltration. In addition, a certified water test should have been performed to recreate the leak to determine the exact source before remediating the problem. The only thing we received from the homeowner with regard to the company that performed the remediation was an (amended) bill. Even though the installation itself was outside of warranty, we offered to evaluate the problem while the other trades were there to help identify the cause. The time to do so would have been when the drywall was removed and the wall cavity was opened up so that a certified water test could be performed and everything could be seen. As previously stated, we were not given access to inspect or evaluate the problem, yet the homeowner is requesting us to pay all of the expenses without question. lf the window product itself was leaking, (as was the prior case with the air infiltration), this is something that should have been addressed by the manufacturer. I appreciate the fact that they removed the *** charges from the claim and we would be more than willing to try to work something out with them (outside of warranty) if indeed our installation caused this problem, however, we cannot take responsibility for something that has not been proven to have been caused by us.If a certified water test had been performed when the wall cavity was open and had we been able to inspect the window, we would have been able to make a proper determination as to the cause or at least determine if the window or installation was a contributing factor. If the source of the problem was not discovered and repaired when the wall was open, it could happen again.I hope the homeowner can understand that without being supplied with the necessary information to determine if indeed the window or installation was or was not at fault, we cannot accept liability for damages, even though we would like to reach a resolution with them. Respectfully yours,*** Weber, PresidentWeber Windows Thank you. *** * *** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I am not satisfied with Weber Windows response as he acknowledges that the windows leaked and he did have to repair windows that were leaking The mold found in the walls had to have been caused by improperly installed windows that leaked as we (or the prior homeowner) never had problems in the impacted area prior to the installation of replacement windowsAs far as *** Weber not being provided access to inspect the area, we hired professionals to give their expert opinion and then perform the work needed to clean up the area caused by the leaky windows We did not deem it necessary for him to review the work as he was not going to be involved in the clean up process.In regard to his statements regarding the installers, we stand by our original statements.In regard to the ***, while we believe the *** was in excellent condition prior to the contamination from the mold we are willing to compromise on our position and remove this portion from our complaint to resolve *** Weber's concerns about the age and quality of said ***. This reduces our claim to $2,and we seek this amended amount of reimbursement from Weber Windows
Regards,
*** ***

Document is attached in answer to the complaint received on 4/19/16 ([redacted]).  If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.RE: Response to Revdex.com Complaint [redacted]To Whom It May...

Concern:Weber Windows received notice of the above referenced complaint on April 19, 2016.Let me begin by saying that we take customer concerns very seriously. As you know, our company is an Accredited A+ business with the Revdex.com and even received the prestigious Revdex.com Torch Award in 2009. In addition, we have received the [redacted]’s List Super Service Award for seven consecutive years (every year it has been issued in our market). We believe that these recognitions, as well as our pristine record with the Revdex.com speak to the fact that we are and have always been very responsive to our customers’ needs and strive to do our best to avoid and resolve any problems as quickly as possible.We are the first to admit that we are human and occasionally make mistakes, but we never shirk our responsibilities to our customers. Although we had hoped to reach a resolution with this customer directly, we have yet to receive sufficient information to determine if in fact our company bears any responsibility for the damage stated in the claim, especially since we were denied access to inspect or evaluate the claim first-hand. I would like to make it clear that the product used in this application was an extruded aluminum clad wood product from a reputable manufacturer, NOT our exclusive fiberglass product. Below we have addressed every concern stated by the customer in their complaint as well as provided additional information where deemed important to the issue at hand.1. Customer stated that we did not use our own installers. We were not untruthful to the customer. The installers were our own dedicated installers. While it has always been our policy to use W-2 installers as we do now and have in the past, there was a period of about a year when we did use installers who were paid on a 1099 basis rather than by W-2. These installers were still, in fact, dedicated installers for our company and subject to the same rigorous standards of W-2 employees in terms of background checks, liability insurance, worker’s compensation as well as installation methods approved by us and our manufacturers. They were not a random subcontractor we pulled off the street and the same crew installed all of our jobs during that short period. In fact, one of the installation crew was a prior employee of our company for over 5 years prior.2. Customer stated that we charged them for scaffolding that was not used and did not refund the cost. We have carefully reviewed the estimate/contract signed by the customer and there is no mention of charging extra for scaffolding. We did incur extra cost for 2nd and 3rd floor installation, in comparison to the 1st floor due to the time required to work from ladders, scaffolding, etc. from a higher surface. In fact, we did in fact pay the installers $1,420 extra for the 2nd & 3rd floor installation, whether it required the use of scaffolding or not, so there was no refund due to the customer. [redacted] Weber denies ever making the comment to the customer, “Oh well”.3. Customer stated that the water and air that leaked into their home was the result of a poor job of installation. The customer purchased windows from us on July 11, 2013 and the installation was completed on August 23, 2013. We were contacted on November 8, 2013 to re-caulk a couple of small areas where there was a break in the secondary sealant. During installation there are two barriers to prevent air & water from infiltrating the home. The primary barrier is the low expansion foam that fills the cavity surrounding the window frame and the framing of the structure. The secondary barrier is the exterior sealant around the perimeter of the window frame. We use a modified polyurethane sealant on the exterior which is self-leveling and contracts slightly as it cures. It appeared that there were one or two small areas which had contracted more than others and they were recaulked on November 11, 2013 (3 days later). At this time there was no mention of any water infiltration into the home.About two months later (January 2014) the customer complained of air leaking at the bottom of the lower sash/sill on several windows. We contacted the manufacturer and they sent one of their service techs to address the problem on January 27, 2014. This was not a result of faulty installation on our part but rather an issue with the product manufacturer. It was determined by the manufacturer that the jamb liners were over- torqued into the frame during production at the factory, creating a gap which allowed air and potentially moisture to penetrate the windows. The manufacturer repaired the problem on-site.Approximately 7 months later (August 28, 2014) we received a call that water had leaked down from the top trim of one window. It is worth mentioning that the prior day (Aug 27, 2014) Louisville had Severe Thunderstorm Rain Squalls with winds gusting at nearly 60 MPH. I inspected the problem on August 28th (the same day as the call) and as a precautionary measure, re-caulked the window above the one that was stated to have had water coming in at the top trim. It can be very difficult to pin[redacted] water infiltration into a home as the window is often the first place water finds a way to enter the interior of the home, even if the water enters the wall from a different source, (i.e. roof or siding leak, unsealed bricks/mortar, sprinkler systems, etc.) With the type of wind gusts and rain squalls associated with the storm that occurred the day prior it is not uncommon for water to infiltrate the wall of the home from some source. For this reason, no further investigation was done and it was not determined that anything with regard to our installation caused this water to infiltrate the home or even that the water came in as a result of the window installation. It could have just as easily entered the home as a result of horizontal winds or overflowing gutters/roof that leaked into the wall cavity and escaped through the window opening, etc.4. Customer phoned us on January 4, 2016 and left a message, which was returned later that day but we were unable to reach them. We had not heard from this customer since August 28, 2014, so we assumed that no further problems had occurred with regard to water infiltration and that the incident referenced above was most likely due to the severe rain squalls and high winds from the previous day. The customer returned our call on January 5, 2016 and we spoke. He advised us that [redacted] was coming over that day and that he was concerned about the presence of mold under the window we had previously caulked after the storm in 2014. He also stated that he found a water leak/soft drywall below the window and had poked his finger right in, indicating that the insulation was damp. He said they ([redacted]) asked him if he had experienced any flooding recently and he told them that he had the windows replaced and that they were installed incorrectly and that could be what is causing the problem. It is apparent that [redacted] and [redacted] made comments with regard to the water infiltration potentially being caused by a leaking window only as a result of being told so by the homeowner and not that they determined that to be the authentic cause of the leak.Later that day, (Jan 5th) the customer called back again and spoke with me. He advised that [redacted] confirmed that there was mold behind the wall in the lower level and recommended he contact [redacted] to check the air quality. [redacted] asked if the drywall was removed when they made this determination so that we could inspect it ourselves and he indicated it had not been removed but that [redacted] had a probe that they could use to test. Customer indicated that [redacted] was coming out the following Monday to perform their inspection. I asked to be present so that we could inspect the window & installation in order to make a determination if indeed the window or installation could be a contributing factor or if it could have been some other source. I was refused access by the customer and he went on to say that he would forward all of the information from the results to us along with the bills. I again, requested to be present and was again, denied access. We were more than willing to work with the customer to evaluate and remedy the problem if deemed our fault but we were not allowed access and were forced to rely on third party testing, none of which indicated the exact reason for the leak (other than the homeowner told them it was due to a faulty window install) and no repairs were required to the windows to prevent what was explained to us as current leaking.The next communication we received from the customer was an email on March 30, 2016 indicating that they would be sending us bills for remediation of the mold. On April 4, 2016 we received an email from the customer with bills attached from [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] Paint totaling $4,658.28. There were no reports attached from any of those companies with their findings or pictures and no explanation. I replied via email on April 6th and requested copies of all of the reports be submitted to us so that I could evaluate and further address their request.We received another email, (I believe the following day) with a copy of the assessment performed by [redacted], however, we have to date, never received reports from [redacted] with either their initial evaluation or detail/pictures assessment of the work that was performed.5. Customer states in their complaint that the mold growth exposed them to high levels of unhealthy mold spores. Regardless of whether or not our company has any liability for the cause of the water infiltration, this statement is inconsistent with the findings from [redacted]. Their report specifically states that the room in question (Basement Exercise Room) did indicate mold growth “inside” the wall cavity space on insulation, drywall and framing, however, there were NO elevated moisture levels detected around the water damaged area. In addition, the report indicated that only trace spore clusters were detected, suggesting slight contamination present within the wall cavity space. They tested three other areas within the home and only one other area showed any sign of mold, with the same description as above, “trace spore clusters, suggesting slight contamination present within the wall cavity”, not high levels of unhealthy mold spores as indicated by the customer. [redacted] concluded that there was no indication of wetness within the assessed areas but there was evidence of water damage and mold growth from past intrusion into the home. In addition, they recommended that restoration work be performed in the Exercise Room in accordance with IICRC Standard S520, and EPA and OSHA guidelines but also indicated that the slight contamination may not represent a significant threat to the indoor air quality of the home.We did not receive any copies of inspections, pictures or work reports from [redacted] indicating what was examined or what work was performed. The report from [redacted] indicated that the [redacted] should be pulled away from the wall, drywall and insulation removed beginning at the area below the 1st floor window until no more damage is found, however, there was no recommendation to replace the [redacted] or indication that the [redacted] was even contaminated. A large part of the bills submitted ($2,187.00) is for [redacted] replacement with no indication of the age or quality of [redacted] that was being replaced.In conclusion, it is apparent that water infiltrated the home at some prior [redacted] and in fact, we were made aware of the event that occurred on August 27, 2014, however, it has not been determined that the cause of the water infiltration was due to a faulty installation on our part or that water re-infiltrated the home at some [redacted] after that date. In fact, there is no mention in the report or complaint from the customer that there is any indication of rot/decay or mold damage to the window product itself or any required repair/replacement of the windows. It would be reasonable to expect that repair/remediation of mold would not be performed without first identifying the nature of the water infiltration and remedying that problem so that there is not a future recurrence.In addition, although attempts were made on our part to examine the problem and try to pin[redacted] the nature of the problem so that we could try to resolve this issue with the customer, we were denied the opportunity to do so. It is highly probable, however, that the water infiltration that occurred in August 2014 was a result of unusually high gusts of wind and severe storms which allowed water to penetrate the home at some [redacted], which has never been determined.Thank you for the opportunity to address this complaint. If you have any questions regarding this issue beyond what is included in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me personally.Respectfully yours,[redacted] Weber, President Weber Windows