Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/02/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Above Board Construction rebuilt our roof & installed a new ventilation system on 5/15/24. On 2/27/25, we noticed two large bumps on the roof. We opened the attic & saw significant mold on the roof decking, rafters, siding, & insulation. The humidity in the attic was condensing and dripping water on the insulation and the *** decking was absorbing moisture & warping, pulling up from the rafters, creating the two large bumps and soft spots throughout. Upon searching, we discovered that over 50% of the roof vents were covered by tar paper, shingles, & flashing, preventing the roof from properly venting. We notified *** the next day on 2/18/25 by speaking to a supervisor & sending pictures. They sent a worker out that day to inspect. The worker confirmed the venting was blocked when it should be open to allow airflow. The worker did not perform repairs at this time & said a supervisor would follow up with us. Over the next 10 days, we asked the supervisor for updates. On 2/28/25, they said a worker will check the venting. We replied that given this egregious workmanship error, we wanted a thorough plan to address the venting, mold, and decking, not just a temporary ************* said okay. Then no response. On 3/7/25, we contacted the ***************** said they would send a worker to repair the venting on 3/12/25 & we agreed. The worker rescheduled for 3/14/25 & opened most of the blocked venting (50% was blocked, opened 25%; 25% remains blocked; No additional venting added). On 3/19/25, we contacted the supervisor asking them to address the mold, ventilation, & damaged roof decking. No response. On 3/26/25, we contacted the supervisor again. No response. As of 4/1/25, it has been 6 weeks since we first contacted *** and 3.5 weeks since the supervisor has communicated with us. Moisture continues build in the attic; The mold is significant and were concerned about our health, the decking is buckling, water is dripping into the insulation, & the drywall may be damaged.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/24/2025

  Response to Complaint ID **********: ******************** Dispute Resolution Specialist
  
  Dear BBB Dispute Resolution Specialist,
  
  Thank you for forwarding the complaint related to ID ********. We appreciate the opportunity to present the full context regarding the roofing project completed at the complainants residence on or around May 15, 2024. At ABC Roofing & Solar, we take customer concerns seriously and are committed to transparency, professionalism, and fair resolution practices.
  
  Summary of Complaint
  
  The complaint alleges that our workmanship, specifically the partial covering of attic vents, resulted in significant mold and moisture accumulation in the attic.
  
  Timeline & ******************** (Before BBB Filing)
  
  We would like to emphasize that all concerns raised in this BBB complaint were already being addressed proactively by our team well before the complaint was filed. At every step, we responded to the homeowners inquiries and took actiondemonstrating our commitment to accountability and customer care.
  
  Background & Existing Conditions
  
  In June 2023, the homeowner contacted us for a roofing bid and explicitly stated that all decking needed replacement due to mold from a pre-existing fungus issue. This is noted on our intake form dated June 15, 2023.
  
  Their home inspection from 2023prior to our involvementalso identified fungus and recommended full decking replacement.
  
  During our roof tear-off in May 2024, we conducted a visual inspection of the insulation and advised the homeowner that no surface mold was seen. However, we were clear in stating that we were not warranting the absence of mold or spores. We informed them that mold often hides below the surface and within materials. Despite this, they declined insulation replacement at that time even though we replaced all their decking.
  
  Actions Taken by Our Company
  
  1. Initial Ventilation & Leak Concerns
  
  On August 28, 2024, upon notification from the customer, we were notified of a roof leak and immediately scheduled a technician to inspect the roof and address the leak.
  
  On November 11, 2024, upon notification from the customer, we were notified of another roof leak and immediately scheduled a technician to inspect the roof. At this time we ascertained that the skylights had some damage prior to us doing the roof that were causing the leaks, and became exasperated by us replacing the roof. We did a fix on the skylights to stop the leaking. And since this date have not been asked to fix a leak.
  
  On February 18, 2025, upon notification from the customer, we immediately scheduled a technician to inspect the attic due to a claim of mold in the attic. It was at this time we discovered  some of the ridge vents were not open due to them being so close to the skylights. Due to the mold in the attic we decided to open them up upon a return trip when the weather was not so bad.
  
  On April 14, 2025, we returned to uncover all accessible attic vents that had been partially covered.
  
  It's important to note that 75% of attic ventilation, not 50%, was operational throughout the period from February 18 - April 14, 2025, and even this was an improvement over the original ventilation prior to our installation.

  Also, during the winter months of February 2025 - April 2025, in which they contacted us and claim we did nothing, is incorrect. Due to inclement weather, namely rain and wind, it was not feasible to address the matter when they called. We did our best to address the matter in a timely fashion concerning the issues at hand and the weather. 
  
  2. Environmental Factors & Pre-Existing Mold
  
  During our inspection on February 18, 2025, we observed an unusually cold and damp attic environmentcommon in homes located in shaded, humid areas of ****************
  
  We advised the homeowner that such conditions can trigger or exacerbate mold growth, even with properly installed roofing and ventilation systems.
  
  We observed that even more so as dehumidifiers we put in the attic in April - months after the leak had been addressed - still extracted significant moisture further confirming a larger environmental issue well beyond a minor roof leak and slightly limited ventilation.
  
  3. Remediation & Goodwill Efforts

  Despite the fact that the current mold was primarily the result of pre-existing and environmentally driven conditions, we offered the following to assist the homeowner:
  
  Corrected blocked ventilation as soon as we were notified. (However, we also told the customer that increasing the attic ventilation could increase their problem as we observed they have a long standing rare environmental condition that is the source of their mold/fungus issues in their attic, as substantiated by a home inspector in 2023, one year prior to us performing any work, or any leaks happening. (This help was offered out of responsibility)
  
  Offered to replace skylights (at no cost) to alleviate prior leak concerns. (This was offered not out of responsibility, but of goodwill)
  
  Ran commercial dehumidifiers to help manage the attics moisture.  (This help was offered out of limited responsibility)
  
  Offered to replace select plywood decking where additional damage was observed. (This help was offered out of limited responsibility) 
  
  Offered to clean and treat the attic decking with mold-inhibiting primer and sealant (Kilz). (This help was offered out of limited responsibility)
  
  Suggested full insulation replacement and offered labor assistance to help remove old insulation. (This labor help was offered not out of responsibility, but of goodwill)
  
  Provided ventilation guidance, including the possibility of conditioning the attic to reduce ambient humidity. We even offered to reduce their venting if they wanted by removing the ridge vents and giving them the limited ventilation they had prior to us installing the new roof. (This help was offered not out of responsibility, but of goodwill)
  
  
  
  Warranty and Contractual Boundaries
  
  We proudly stand behind our workmanship warranties, which covers defects in our installation. However, we must respectfully assert that:
  
  Full mold remediation, replacement of all attic decking, and ventilation redesign exceed the scope of our warranty and contract due to the fact that the current mold issues are due to preexisting spores and issues that were of no fault of our company. We do recognize that the minor leaking and limited ventilation played a role in the current mold issue, but in no way is it the source, nor even a major part of their problem as we have previously explained. 
  
  The root cause of the extensive mold is linked to long-standing environmental conditions outside of anyones control, and documented pre-existing issues in the attic, not our roofing work.
  
  The ventilation installation we provided meets modern code and improved the propertys prior setup even when it was partially covered. However, it has been fully uncovered at this time.
  
  Clarification Regarding the BBB Complaint
  
  We want to clearly state that:
  
  All remediation communications, steps, and assistance began before the complainant filed their BBB complaint.The claim that we have not acted or responded appropriately does not align with the facts. We were already in the process of taking the course of action they are requesting prior to filing their complaint. We are unsure why they even filed a complaint when we have already been doing what they are asking for.
  
  We have documented communications, work orders, and technician notes verifying our active involvement and willingness to assist since the first report of attic moisture issues.
  
  Conclusion
  
  ABC Roofing & Solar has acted in good faith at every stage of this project. We promptly addressed the minor workmanship concern, communicated clearly and consistently, and have gone well beyond contractual requirements to support the homeowner with a pre-existing and complex environmental issue.
  
  We remain open to further resolution discussions but respectfully stand by our position that we have met and exceeded our obligations. We hope this context helps clarify our actions and reinforces our commitment to customer care and integrity. If you would like any further documentation concerning the fact of which we have stated please do not hesitate to ask.
  
  Thank you for your time and consideration.
  
  Sincerely,**** HawkinsCEO, ABC Roofing & Solar

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/25/2025

  We appreciate ABCs response to our complaint. We would like to address some incorrect and/or mischaracterized statements to ensure that the facts are clear. We have included our rebuttal at the end of this response

  Background & Exiting Conditions: Correction in fact
  - During roof tear off in May of 2024, we were not informed that mold often hides below the surface and within materials, as they state. We were told that replacing the insulation was not recommended because there were no visible signs of fungus other than the minor amount on the old roof decking.

  
  1. Initial Ventilation & Leak Concerns: Corrections in facts overall
  - We did not receive a response until 9/3; It was not immediate as they state. We had to call their office back because they did not respond to our first notification of the leak on 8/28/24.
  - Clarifications in the timeline of communications and work: On 9/3, they sent a worker out that day after our second call and the worker temporarily stopped the leak by caulking the skylight and applying roofing cement over some shingles. When it came to completing this repair, the worker no-showed multiple times after confirming appointments. On 10/9 (5 weeks later), after no-shows and no communication from the Humboldt supervisor, we contacted the corporate office in ******* asking for help because we were still dealing with leaks. On 10/11, a ******* supervisor, ****, contacted us and sent the worker out that day who again temporarily patched the new leaks. On 10/17, the Humboldt supervisor said they were finishing up a large job and would then focus on permanent repairs to our roof. On 10/31 (2 months after the first leak was reported), the worker came out with a skylight repair kit but could not complete the repair because he was missing a part. On 11/18 (almost 3 months after the initial leak was reported), we had not heard anything, and we communicated with the Humboldt supervisor that another leak had started. The supervisor came to the house that day and stated that *** would replace one of the skylights because it was damaged beyond repair during roof construction. During this visit, the supervisor looked at all the skylights and concluded that 4 out of 7 of them were actively leaking. No repairs were attempted and the supervisor said he would follow up with us. On 11/24, our ceiling became badly water damaged during a rainstorm in two locations due to the continued leaking. On 11/25, we contacted the Humboldt supervisor again to alert him to the ceiling damage. The supervisor replied that he needed to communicate with the CEO about how to proceed. The same day, we called the office in ******* to let them know about the new leak and the damage so that they could documented it as well. The same day, the worker said he had the materials to replace the skylight, and we gave him our availability for that week so that he could complete the work. He did not respond. On 11/30 (over 3 months since the first leak was reported), we again told the worker that we were available and he could complete the work at any time, and he scheduled to come out the next day on 11/31 to replace the skylight and reseal the rest of the skylights, which he did, after over 3 months of leaking. No attempts were made or offered to repair the ceiling damage. On 12/12, another skylight began leaking into the house. My husband put plastic sheeting over the skylights to stop the leaking. On 12/22, we posted a 1 start review on ****** reviews. The next day on 12/23, ****, the supervisor in ******* called to say that *** would fix the ceiling damage. We agreed that the skylights could wait until the weather improved in a few months to figure out what to do since they were not actively leaking with the plastic sheeting over them. On 12/31, a different worker came out and repaired the ceiling.
  - We were not informed that the skylights had some damage prior to [them] replacing the roof. Our escrow home inspection listed 7 of the skylights as satisfactory just 1 year prior. A copy of this report was provided to ****
  - Clarifications in the timeline of communications and work: On 2/18, we notified **** about large ripples in the decking discovered on top of the roof and the significant mold discovered in the attic. We told **** that we could see from the attic that the ridge vent gaps were covered by roof underlayment and blocked by the skylight flashing. The same day, a worker came out to look in the attic and on the roof. The worker did not look at the ridge vents and no repairs were attempted. On 2/28, we had not received any updates on the status of the repairs, so we called the main office in *******. We communicated with **** later that day and stated that we wanted a thorough plan to address the venting, mold, and decking, not just a temporary repair, and he said he would follow up with us. On 3/7, **** said he said he would send a worker out to look at the ridge venting. On 3/12, a worker arrived to work on the ridge vents, but it was pouring rain, so he said he would come back the next day. He did not show up on 3/13. He showed up on 3/14 (3.5 weeks after reporting the issues) with another worker. They pulled up the ridge vents and discovered that approximately 50% of the ventable ridge line was blocked by decking, underlayment, shingles and/or skylight flashing. These blocked ridge vents included the ridge above the first story of the house (this area was 100% blocked) and a portion of the second story ridge line which was blocked by flashing, underlayment, and shingles. The workers opened up the blocked venting that they could. They said the skylight flashing that was blocking the vents still needed to be addressed and that someone would follow up with us. On 3/19, we had not heard anything, so we reached out to ****. No response. On 3/26, we still had not heard anything about the plan for the skylight flashing, damaged roof decking, or mold, so we reached out to **** again. No response. On 4/2 (almost 4 weeks after our last contact with a supervisor), we filed the BBB complaint because no one from *** was communicating with us about the status of the repairs in progress or the plan to address the damaged decking or mold. On 4/3, the CEO, **** contacted us.
  - There was no work performed on 4/14, as they state. On 4/9 a worker came out from ******* to put dehumidifiers in the attic space. He returned on 4/10 to check on the dehumidifiers. He returned on 4/11 and widened the ridge vent gaps that the other worker had unblocked to increase ventilation. He also cut back skylight flashing on one of the skylights blocking the ridge vent gap but that the other skylight, which was blocking the gap, could not be cut back. He reported that he felt that the ventilation was now sufficient even with the skylight flashing skill blocking part of the ridge vent.
  - We did not claim that during the winter months of February 2025 - April 2025 [*** did nothing]. It was stated that we reported the issues on 2/17, a worker came out on 2/18 to inspect but not repair. No one came out again until 3/14, at which point most of the repairs were made to the ridge venting but the work was not completed. During this time, a supervisor could not be reached despite us reaching out twice on 3/19 and 3/26. **** called me on 4/3. Inclement weather had no bearing on *** not returning our requests for status updates.

  
  2. Environmental Factors & Pre-Existing Mold: Corrections in facts overall
  - The worker did not report to us that such conditions (cold and damp attic environments) can trigger or exacerbate mold growth, even with properly installed roofing and ventilation systems during the inspection on 2/18. The worker did say that it was the worst mold he had ever witnessed.
  - It is mischaracterized to say, [dehumidifiers] still extracted significant moisture further confirming a larger environmental issue well beyond a minor roof leak and slightly limited ventilation. The dehumidifiers extracted moisture because thats their function and there is always some moisture available to be pulled from the air. The worker who came out on 4/8, 4 weeks after the ridge vent gaps were unblocked on 3/14, reported that the mold had decreased, leaving behind black stains on the decking/siding and indents throughout the insulation where mold had been but was now receding. This indicates that unblocking the ridge vent gaps increased ventilation to an acceptable level and the mold was now retreating, indicating that the blocked ridge vent gaps caused an environment where the mold was allowed to thrive.

  
  3. Remediation & Goodwill Efforts: Corrections in facts overall
  - It is incorrect to say the current mold was primarily the result of pre-existing and environmentally driven conditions. The ridge venting was 50% blocked due to an egregious workmanship oversight, by way of decking, underlayment, shingles, and skylight flashing blocking the roof ventilation system which then led to extreme mold growth and condensation on the roof decking which damaged its integrity by causing warping. When ABC re-roofed the house, they did so completely down to the rafters and installed a completely new roof ventilation system (box vents were on the old roof, not ridge venting). Their decision to install a ridge venting system and then their oversight in leaving 50% of the venting blocked by construction materials created the conditions for this significant damage to occur.
  - It is incorrect to say, [ABC] corrected blocked ventilation as soon as [they] were notified. We notified *** of the issues on 2/18. They mostly unblocked the vents on 3/14, 3.5 weeks after notification. They fully unblocked and verified appropriate ventilation during the work that was performed on 4/11, 7.5 weeks after notification of the issue. We do not consider an almost 2 months wait to be correction as soon as notified.
  - In regard to the offer to replace the skylights: The supervisor in ******** acknowledged that the skylights were damaged during roof construction. **** offered to replace them during our conversation on 4/3. This offer is very appreciated. We are waiting for this work to be scheduled. If it cannot be schedule for some time due to the weather, this is understandable, and we will keep the plastic sheeting on the skylights until that time and repair the sheeting as needed (wind and rain require us to redo the tape).
  - In regard to the offers to replace select decking where damage was observed, to clean and treat the attic decking with mold-inhibiting primer and sealant, and of labor assistance to help remove old insulation, these are adequate ways to address the damage. We last spoke with **** on 4/4 (3 weeks ago) and are still waiting for updates and to be scheduled for this work.

  
  Warranty and Contractual Boundaries
  - In regard to our requests for mold remediation, replacement of decking, and installation of adequate ventilation, we agree that a full replacement of the roof is unnecessary. However, correction of damaged materials is within the scope of their workmanship guarantee because issues arising from their roof installation created the environment in which these issued occurred.
  - In regard to the root cause of the extensive mold, we were transparent with ABC about a fungus issue on the decking of a 20 year old roof as noted in our escrow pest inspection report. Fugus was not noted on any other surfaces other than the decking, and at that time, it was minor, encompassing a few select spots that could be seen from the attic access. The initial fugus on the decking was in no way comparable to the significant mold that was observed by **** worker on the decking, rafters, siding, and insulation on 2/18. Fungus exists in every single attic. It floats freely through the air at all times, known as wild yeast to many bread bakers. Its up to the environment to create the ideal conditions for it to thrive. Restricted ventilation during the wettest months of the year, combined with leaks, is what caused significant damage to this less than 1 year old roof, especially when the 20-year-old roof that was replaced had minimal signs of fungus even after all that time.
  - In regard to the claim that the ridge ventilation improved our propertys prior setup even when it was partially covered, this is incorrect, as evidence by significant damage from the mositure and mold which thrived in an inadequately ventilated attic due to blocked ventilation.
  

  Clarification Regarding the BBB Complaint: Response
  - ABC was in the process of taking action when this complaint was filed. However, a supervisor could not be reached after 3/7 until this complaint was filed on 4/2, despite us having reached out to the supervisor multiple times and the workers having partly completed repairs on 3/14. We were left to believe that *** was breaching their workmanship guarantee due to this almost 4-week stretch of non-response. This is why the complaint was filed To ensure that *** would be held accountable to their contract if they continued to not communicate with us.
  

  Conclusion: Rebuttal
  - At this point in time, *** appears to be acting in good faith, however, this is not a final assessment. Their communication since August 2024 when the first leak began has been unreliable, sometimes with month long gaps in between communications for ongoing repairs when there have been active leaks and no-shows when repairs needed to occur. We have communicated promptly each time an issue has occurred. We have documented all issues with photos, videos, screenshots, and in our communication log spreadsheet. We have a picture of **** overall approach to handling the leaks, venting, and mold, based on this data but are willing to continue working with them to complete these repairs, at which point we hope that our data reflects the good faith that they refer to. Once the work of painting the attic, skylight replacement, replacing the damaged decking, visually assessing the vaulted single-story decking for mold damage and we have a plan for the insulation, then we will agree that *** will have met their obligations to their contract under their workmanship guarantee. But as of right now, we are rejecting this response from *** because this dispute remains unresolved until the above work is completed and/or agreed to in a signed contract.

   

  *We would like to correct an error in our initial complaint. We stated "On 2/27/25, we noticed two large bumps on the roof." This date is incorrect and should be 2/17/25. The rest of the dates in the inital complaint are correct.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/02/2025

  To whom it may concern: I have already responded to this complaint with the BBB and the homeowner multiple times. I am not going to keep going back and forth over details that we do not agree on that have no significant value to the main issue(s). As stated before, we are actively working with this customer to resolve this issue and the last time we communicated with them they were happy with what we are doing. This whole issue should be resolved by end of June at the latest. 

  We did have an employee who was handling this originally and they did not communicate as they should have with the customer, since we removed that person from handling it we have been in good communication and actively working to resolve this in a way the customer is happy with.

  **** *******

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/05/2025

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me provided that the issues are remedied as discussed.

   

  Thank you for your help with this matter.

  ******* *****